Baker Hotel v. Hotel Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Local No. 161

• Decision Date: 06 July 1949
• Citation: 187 Or. 58,207 P.2d 1129
• Parties: BAKER COMMUNITY HOTEL CO. <I>v.</I> HOTEL RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES & BARTENDERS LOCAL No. 161
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

187 Or. 58

207 P.2d 1129

BAKER COMMUNITY HOTEL CO.v.

HOTEL RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES & BARTENDERS LOCAL No. 161

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Argued May 19, 1949.

Reversed July 6, 1949.

Petition for rehearing denied September 27, 1949.

Pleading — Demurrer — Insufficiency of facts

1. When a pleading meets with a demurrer, predicated on a contention of insufficient facts, it is accepted as a true statement of the controversy, and thereupon the sole judicial labor that remains to be performed is to apply the law to the facts set forth in the pleading.

Pleading — Submitting case on pleadings — Language conforms to established rules of pleading

2. A party who elects to submit his case on his pleading, must make certain that his pleading is couched in language which conforms to the established rules of pleading.

Pleading — "Conclusions" — Improper

3. "Conclusions" which are terms which do not delineate the facts, and which go no further than to recite the pleader's reactions to, or the inferences he draws from, undisclosed facts, are improper under established rules of pleading.

See Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, for other judicial constructions and definitions of "Conclusion".

Pleading — Conclusions — Demurrer — Facts well pleaded

4. Conclusions are ignored when a pleading is tested by demurrer, and there are counted in favor of the pleading only facts that are well pleaded.

Pleading — Demurrer — Facts — Language

5. A demurrer tests the pleader's alleged facts, and, in that test, nothing passes as a fact unless it is expressed in plain and concise language.

Master and servant — Employer — Employee — Dispute — Collective bargaining — Labor union

6. Act to provide for elections by secret ballot to decide on continuation of a labor dispute between an employer and his employees in a collective bargaining unit, was not applicable in suit by employer against labor union and its secretary to enjoin picketing of employer's place of business after majority of employees had voted against affiliating with union. Laws 1947, c. 355.

Injunction — Anti-Injunction Act

7. The Anti-Injunction Act prevents a state court from enjoining peaceful picketing by union demanding unionization by employer of his shop, though employer is willing and his employees refuse. O.C.L.A. §§ 102-913 to 102-925.

Injunction — Demand — Union — Employer — Unionize shop — "Labor dispute" — Anti-Injunction Act

8. A demand by a union on an employer that he unionize his shop, followed by his refusal to do so, constitutes a "labor dispute," within meaning of the Anti-Injunction Act. O.C.L.A. §§ 102-913 to 102-925.

See Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, for other judicial constructions and definitions of "Labor Dispute".

Injunction — Anti-Injunction Act — Labor union — Picketing

9. Labor union could not, because of the Anti-Injunction Act, be enjoined from picketing employer's hotel, though majority of employers' employees had voted against affiliating with union, and though placards of pickets allegedly stated falsely that employer was unfair to organized labor. O.C.L.A. §§ 102-913 to 102-925.

                  See 31 Am. Jur., 940
                  116 A.L.R., 484
                  43 C.J.S., Injunctions, § 143
                

Appeal from Circuit Court, Baker County.

HOMER I. WATTS, Judge.

James T. Landye, of Portland, argued the cause for appellants. On the brief were Green, Landye & Peterson and Donald S. Richardson, of Portland.

Blaine Hallock, of Baker, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Hallock, Donald, Banta & Silven, of Baker.

Before LUSK, Chief Justice, and BRAND, ROSSMAN, BAILEY and HAY, Justices.

Suit by the Baker Community Hotel Company, a corporation, against the Hotel and Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International League, Local 161, a labor union, and C.M. Robbins, to enjoin defendants from picketing the plaintiffs place of business and for compensatory damages and punitive damages. From a decree for the plaintiff, the defendants appeal.

REVERSED.

ROSSMAN, J.

This is an appeal by the defendants, a labor union and an official of the union, from a decree of the Circuit Court which enjoined them from picketing the place of business of the plaintiff and granted the latter judgment against the defendants for $1,000 compensatory damages, $1,500 punitive damages, and the costs of the suit.

Before the challenged decree was entered, the following course was taken: (1) A motion, filed by the appellants to strike some parts of the amended and supplemental complaint and to make other parts more certain, had been denied; (2) a demurrer, filed by the appellants on the grounds that (a) the court had no jurisdiction over the suit, and (b) the complaint did not state a cause, had been overruled; and (3) the appellants had declined to plead further.

The appellants present the following assignments of error:

1. "The court erred in denying defendants' motions directed against plaintiff's amended and supplemental complaint."

2. "Chapter 355, Oregon Laws 1947, has no application to the facts of this case as alleged in plaintiff's amended and supplemental complaint."

3. "Chapter 355, Oregon Laws 1947, was not complied with in this case in that there was no hearing held or determination of a collective bargain unit made."

4. "Chapter 355, Oregon Laws 1947, if applicable to the facts of this case, is void because of unconstitutionality."

For the purpose of brevity we will refer to the amended and supplemental complaint as the complaint.

It will be seen from the foregoing that our sole source of information concerning the facts of this suit is the complaint. The latter states that the respondent is engaged "in the conduct of a hotel and restaurant business" in the city of Baker "and has in its employ approximately forty employees." It also states that the appellant Hotel Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International League, Local 161, is a labor union and that the individual appellant is an official of the union. Paragraph III follows:

"On and prior to May 21, 1948, a labor dispute existed between the plaintiff and its employees within the meaning of, and as contemplated by chapter 355, Oregon Laws, 1947, in that portion of plaintiff's employees, although as it developed not a majority, were members, or desired to become members of the said union, and desired that said union be designated as the exclusive bargaining agent of plaintiff's said employees. That at their instigation and request the said union, through the defendant C.M. Robbins, its secretary, and local managing head, submitted to plaintiff a form of contract designating the said union as the collective bargaining agent of plaintiff's said employees, and reciting that thereafter plaintiff should hire only members of good standing of the said defendant union. That plaintiff refused to sign such contract unless it was first established that a majority of plaintiff's employees desired to become members of said union and to have it act as their exclusive bargaining agent, and defendant thereupon proceeded to picket plaintiff's place of business in an effort to enforce compliance with said demand."

Paragraph IV avers that in order to ascertain the wishes of the majority of respondent's employees, an election was held May 10, 1948, during the course of which fifteen employees voted in favor of "affiliating with the union and have it act as their exclusive bargaining agency, and twenty against said proposal, with three votes, for technical reasons, not counted." After the vote was taken, "the said minority group", so the complaint says, threatened to continue to picket the respondent's place of business unless their demands were met. Then comes Paragraph VI which reads as follows:

"In order to settle such dispute and to definitely fix and determine the rights of the parties, plaintiff, pursuant to the provisions of said Chapter 355, Oregon Laws, 1947, and on or about May 17, 1948, filed with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor of the State of Oregon, its petition, in due form, requesting the State Labor Commissioner to hold an election among plaintiff's employees to determine whether such labor dispute should continue or should be terminated. That thereupon, and on May 21, 1948, the said Commissioner, as by law required, held an election of plaintiff's said employees on the question of whether said labor dispute should be continued or should be terminated. That at such election the vote among plaintiff's employees was 13 for continuing the labor dispute and 25 for terminating it. That following such election, the said Labor Commissioner, on the said day, issued his certificate certifying the outcome of said election in words and figures as follows:

"`This is to certify that such election was held this date and of thirty-eight employees of the Baker Community Hotel Company eligible to vote thirteen voted to continue the labor dispute and twenty-five voted to terminate the labor dispute.'

"That as a consequence of said election and certificate the said labor dispute is terminated and no longer exists; that such termination is effective for a period of one year from said date of May 21, 1948."

Paragraph VII says:

"That in spite of the fact that said matter has been formally settled and established as provided in said Chapter 355, the said defendants nevertheless refused to recognize the result of such election."

The "said defendants" are, of course, the appellants, that is, the union and its secretary. The paragraph goes on to say that the appellants "wilfully, wrongfully and maliciously resumed the picketing" with persons who displayed placards reading "Unfair to Organized Labor." The averments claim that the statement upon the placards "is wholly false and the plaintiff is not unfair to organized labor, does not discriminate, and has not discriminated against organized labor in any way, and was and is willing to deal with organized labor and with the said union, or any other labor organization,...