Blanchard v. Golden Age Brewing Co.

• Decision Date: 07 December 1936
• Docket Number: 25813.
• Citation: 188 Wash. 396,63 P.2d 397
• Parties: BLANCHARD et al. v. GOLDEN AGE BREWING CO. et al., and three other cases.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

63 P.2d 397

188 Wash. 396

BLANCHARD et al.

v.

GOLDEN AGE BREWING CO. et al., and three other cases.

No. 25813.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 7, 1936

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Fred H. Witt, Judge.

Actions by C. A. Blanchard and others against the Golden Age Brewing Company and others, by M. R. French and others against the Goetz Brewing Company and others, by Curtis E. Johnson and others against the Bohemian Brewing Company and others, and by Albert F. Nienan and others against the Spokane Brewing &amp Malting Company and others. From a judgment pronouncing Harry Dail guilty of contempt of court and assessing a fine against him for violation of restraining orders against defendants he appeals.

Affirmed.

Vanderveer & Bassett, of Seattle, for appellant.

John F Dore, of Seattle, for respondents.

STEINERT Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment pronouncing an individual in contempt of court and assessing a fine against him for violation of co-ordinate restraining orders issued simultaneously in four cases, each involving an alleged labor dispute.

The case as a whole is somewhat unusual in that the original dispute was not between employers and their respective employees, but between two labor factions, one of which included certain members of a particular union, and the other of which included representatives of another union, the employers subsequently becoming involved against their will and by force of dominant circumstances. An added peculiarity of the case comes about from the fact that the theory upon which the actions were originally brought has been considerably restricted and limited, since the trial of the particular matter in issue, by reason of a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court.

Respondents, aggregating seventy-seven individuals, are members of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, and Soft Drink Workers of America, a labor union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and hereinafter referred to as the brewery workers' union. At, and for some time prior to, the time of the commencement of these actions, respondents were in the employ of one or another of the four brewery companies named as defendants herein. Another defendant, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen, and Helpers of America, hereinafter referred to as the teamsters' union, is also a labor union holding a charter from the American Federation of Labor. Four other defendants are branch, or local, unions of the teamsters' union. Dave Beck, also a defendant, is an officer of the teamsters' union. Harry Dail, the appellant, is the business representative of one of the defendant teamster unions and, as such, had charge of the northwest distract; he was not, however, originally a party to this litigation.

In the background of these actions is the history and memory of a violent dispute between the two large parent unions, above named, with respect to jurisdiction over truckers and teamsters employed in the brewing industry. Up until the summer of 1933, the brewery workers' union had maintained, with practical success, in this state, their claimed right of control over such truckers and teamsters. Lately, however, this was in the face of several decisions of the executive council and of the convention of the American Federation of Labor, which awarded jurisdiction over the truckers and teamsters to the teamsters' union.

A serious situation was thus developed, and, in consequence, trouble between the two large unions ensued. In the offing, moreover, was inevitable trouble for the various breweries with one, or both, of the two large unions and their subsidiaries. Apprehension of strikes, actual or threatened, soon became a certainty, for, as a result of the strife between the two parent unions over the matter of jurisdiction regarding truckers and teamsters, the brewery workers' union called a series of strikes against a brewery in Seattle. This precipitated litigation between the brewery and that union, in the course of which the brewery owners, as plaintiffs, obtained a temporary injunction against the brewery workers and, later, a judgment declaring the strike unlawful and permanently enjoining it.

In the meantime, and Before the trouble had reached the point of litigation in Seattle, Congress, on June 16, 1933, passed what is commonly known as the National Industrial Recovery Act. 48 U.S.Stat. at L. 195, title 15 U.S.C.A.§ 701 et seq. That act provided, among other things, for the adoption of codes of fair competition by trade or industrial groups, on approval by the President. Section 7(a) of that act (title 15 U.S.C.A. § 707(a) provided that employees should have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, free from interference, restraint, or coercion of employers or their agents, and that no employee should be required, as a condition of employment, to join any company union or to refrain from joining any labor organization of his own choosing. The passage of that act added further complications to the conditions existing between the unions, as will presently appear.

Pursuant to the federal act, the brewing industry adopted a code, effective December 4, 1933, which was about the time of the Seattle trouble. The code contained provisions identical with those above referred to as parts of section 7(a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act, and also a provision that the employees of the brewing industry in each region should, by election, name two members to represent them in labor negotiations with the respective owner managements. The state of Washington was grouped with a number of other states in region 17. Further reference to the proceedings that were subsequently taken under the code will be reserved for its proper chronological position in our statement of the case.

In December, 1933, the issue between the teamsters' union and the brewery workers' union was brought within one step of the situation which caused the ultimate conflict. On December 29, Pacific Northwest Breweries Association, a corporation embracing twenty-seven breweries and their subsidiaries located in region 17, and eight individual representatives, allegedly acting for all unions who should conform to the decisions of the American Federation of Labor respecting matters of craft jurisdiction, entered into a written agreement which provided, among other things, that all work connected with the manufacture and distribution of the products of the association should be performed by members in good standing of the various unions having jurisdiction over such work. This agreement, of course, favored the position taken by the teamsters' union and was contrary to the claims upon which the brewery workers' union was insisting. Naturally, the brewery workers' union refused to be bound by that agreement.

The finishing touch to the situation then existing between the two unions was accomplished on January 17, 1934, when the above-named contracting parties entered into a supplemental written agreement which provided that, upon 'the expressed desire' of the association officially communicated in writing, 'the unions interested' would immediately demand that the brewery workers' union agree to observe the conditions of the agreement of December 29, 1933, and that, upon its refusal so to do within ten days, the teamsters' union would organize the inside brewery workers and accept their affiliation, if tendered. Under this supplemental agreement, the only recourse left to the members of the brewery workers' union was either to relinquish their claims to jurisdiction over truckers and teamsters or else to disassociate themselves from their own union and join the teamsters' union. Subsequent to the execution of the supplemental agreement, practically all of the breweries in western Washington were operated by employees who were members of the teamsters' union. As a result, boycotts were instituted by the brewery workers' union against the products of western Washington breweries. In retaliation, the members of the teamsters' union limited their personal purchases of beer to the products of the same breweries.

With the stage thus set, the scene of events next moved to Spokane, where a number of breweries, including those of the defendant brewing companies herein named, were located. The same conditions as those already outlined above, with reference to conflict of jurisdiction, obtained in that area. While trouble had not yet reached an acute stage, it gave full promise of eventually producing the same results.

Up to this time, however, there had been no immediate trouble or disagreement between the Spokane breweries, defendants herein, and any of their employees, whether brewery workers or teamsters. Wages, hours, and conditions of employment, as between employers and employees, were satisfactory to all parties concerned. The situation, however, was rapidly becoming ominous, and, for the brewing companies, perilous, because of the fact that neither of the two large unions would recognize the claims of the other, both insisting upon their respectively asserted rights. Strikes were inevitable, and the only question was when and by whom actual conflict would be precipitated.

In July, 1934, at an election held pursuant to the code provisions above mentioned, two members of the brewery workers' union were elected to represent the brewery employees in their labor negotiations with the brewery owners. At the same election, defendant Beck, a member of the teamsters' union, was a candidate, but was defeated. The results of that election indicated the stand of the brewery workers' union and made ultimate conflict a foregone conclusion.

...