C. H. Elle Const. Co. v. Pocatello Bldg. & Const. Trades Council
| Decision Date | 19 April 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 449,No. 182,Nos. 8174,8175,No. 983,449,983,182,s. 8174 |
| Citation | 77 Idaho 514,297 P.2d 519 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 78 Idaho 1 C. H. ELLE CONSTRUCTION CO., a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POCATELLO BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, an unincorporated association; J. Russell and Francis Sherman, Defendants-Respondents. J. R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, a corporation, as such, and J. R. Simplot Company, a corporation, doing business under the firm name and style of Simplot Fertilizer Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. POCATELLO BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, an unincorporated association; J. Russell; Francis Sherman; Electricians Local; Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union; Boilermakers Union; Pocatello Labor Council, known as the Pocatello Central Labor Council; Clarence Lott; J. A. Russell and Mike Morelli, Defendants-Respondents. |
Louis F. Racine, Jr., Pocatello, for Elle Const. Co.
O. R. Baum and Ruby Y. Brown, Pocatello, for Simplot Co.
George R. Phillips, Pocatello, Clarence M. Beck, Reid W. Nielson, Salt Lake City, Utah, for respondents.
Appellant J. R. Simplot Company, a corporation, doing business as the Simplot Fertilizer Company, brought an action against the Pocatello Building & Construction Trades Council, an unincorporated association, and others, to secure an injunction to prohibit picketing and other activities engaged in by defendants and respondents. A similar action was brought by C. H. Elle Construction Company against the Pocatello Building & Construction Trades Council, and others, to enjoin the same activities complained of by appellant Simplot. The two cases were consolidated in the District Court and here for decision.
Appellant J. R. Simplot Company and Simplot Fertilizer Company will hereinafter be referred to as Simplot. Appellant C. H. Elle Construction Company will hereinafter be referred to as Elle. Defendants and respondents in both cases will be referred to as the Union.
A show cause order was issued in the Simplot case returnable on October 21, 1952, and the Union was directed to show cause why it should not be enjoined and restrained from performing the acts complained of in the complaint, namely: maintaining a picket line or any picket line at the entrance of the Simplot plant at Don, Idaho; notifying and advising business houses, concerns, and people in general not to have their employees cross a picket line, the picket line, or any picket line. A similar show cause order was issued in the Elle case returnable at the same time, by the terms of which the Union, and persons acting in its behalf, were directed to show cause why they should not be restrained and enjoined from maintaining pickets and picketing in front of or in the immediate vicinity of the Simplot Fertilizer Company in Power County, Idaho, and certain other activities engaged in by the Union.
The Union in each case appeared at the time directed, filed no pleading or showing whatsoever, and entered an objection to the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter, which objection was overruled. Thereafter testimony was submitted by the Union, Simplot and Elle, and at the conclusion of the evidence, on October 25, 1952, the court in the Simplot case issued a temporary injunction that the Union, its officers, agents, servants and pickets, and persons acting in its behalf be enjoined and restrained from maintaining pickets and picket lines at the plant of Simplot at Don, Idaho, and from picketing said plant, and from advising any members of the individual crafts not to cross the picket line. or any picket line, and enjoined the doing of other acts complained of in the complaint. A similar temporary injunction was issued in the Elle case. Thereafter the Union, in each case, filed an answer to the complaint. The cases were heard on the merits on March 11, 1953, and from the testimony and other evidence, the court thereafter entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgments favorable to the Union and dissolved the temporary injunctions formerly issued. Simplot and Elle appealed from the judgments.
Simplot has for a number of years last past been, among other things, engaged in the operation of a phosphate fertilizer plant at Don, Idaho. Certain conversion work was undertaken by Simplot at the plant which included construction of certain stainless steel tanks. In the conversion of the plant certain heavy construction work had to be done. Elle is an independent contractor, equipped with heavy machinery to perform heavy construction work. A contract was entered into between Elle and Simplot in which a part of the reconstruction work and the conversion of the Simplot plant was to be done by Elle.
Simplot's employees are members of the Oil Workers International Union, an affiliate of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, hereinafter referred to as the CIO, and had been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the representative for the purpose of collective bargaining with Simplot. Elle's employees are members of certain crafts associated with the American Federation of Labor. None of Simplot's employees was a member of the American Federation of Labor, and none of Elle's employees was a member of the CIO.
The Union, an unincorporated association of craftsmen, which represents the employees of Elle, had a contract with Elle which enumerated the conditions of employment, wage to be paid, and other matters, which, among other things, provided that all employees of Elle should be required to become and remain members of the Union as a condition of employment.
The court found that there was no labor dispute existing between the CIO Oil Workers International Union and Simplot, or its employees, and further found that a dispute (distinguishable from a labor dispute) arose and existed between Simplot and the Union.
During the progress of the reconstruction work, the Union established a picket line at the only entrance to the Simplot plant and there displayed an advertisement reading Simplot was then placed on the Union's unfair list and members of the Teamsters Union No. 983 and others were notified. Trucks hauling material to and from the Don plant, the workmen being members of the A.F.L., refrained and refused to cross the picket line or make deliveries to or pickups from the Don plant. Simplot's employees ignored the Union's picket or pickets and advertisement, and continued to work as though no picket line had been established.
It is the contention of the Union that in the reconstruction being done at the Don plant, the craftsmen who are members of the A.F.L. should perform all such reconstruction work or none. The purpose of the picket line and other activities engaged in by the Union directed against Simplot was to compel Simplot to employ A.F.L. craftsmen or labor in the construction work and pay a higher wage than Simplot was allegedly paying.
The work which the Union insisted should be done by A.F.L. labor was principally in the fabrication of the tanks to be installed. Employees of Simplot were specially trained to do this work and this item was the principal one giving rise to the controversy. At one time a crane used to unload steel by Elle which required five men to man, and Elle not having such employees, some of Simplot's employees assisted.
During negotiations between the parties, a representative of the Union advised Simplot that the Union would permit the Simplot employees to do the work they were doing if they were paid construction wages and a payment made to the Union of $2 per man per week. Neither such employees of Simplot nor their bargaining agent made any objection to doing the work, or the wages paid.
By what authority the Union, or its representatives, assumed to speak for Simplot's employees or to direct Simplot as to what work its employees should do or refrain from doing, or what wages should be paid by Simplot, is not explained.
It is the contention of both Elle and Simplot that the work being done by Simplot's employees was not work which Elle should perform by reason of the contract entered into between Elle and Simplot.
The Union contends that the bargaining representative (CIO) of Simplot's employees was limited to production and maintenance' and that in the construction work being done by Simplot, the employees of Simplot should not have been permitted to do any of the work in the reconstruction of the plant.
Elle was only to do the work in the reconstruction directed by Simplot. Other work was to be performed by Simplot's employees.
The question of what work Elle was to perform and work to be performed by Simplot was a matter to be determined by agreement between Elle and Simplot. Simplot could have contracted with Elle to do all the work, a part, or none. Under the contract of employment entered into between Elle and the Union, all of the employees of Elle would have to be members of the A.F.L., but the Union is not in a position to complain that Simplot had not delegated Elle to do more of the work than the parties contracted for or that Simplot paid wages allegedly less than Elle employees would have been paid for doing similar work.
If Simplot's employees engaged in the fabrication or finishing of the stainless steel tanks were not paid wages conformable to Elle construction workers, this was a matter over which only Simplot's employees, or its bargaining representative, would have a right to complain, and the contention...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sears, Roebuck and Co v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters
...e. g., Pocatello Building & Constr. Trades Council v. C. H. Elle Constr. Co., 352 U.S. 884, 77 S.Ct. 130, 1 L.Ed.2d 82, rev'g 78 Idaho 1, 297 P.2d 519 (1956); Electrical Workers v. Farnsworth & Chambers Co., 353 U.S. 969, 77 S.Ct. 1056, 1 L.Ed.2d 1133, rev'g 201 Tenn. 329, 299 S.W.2d 8 (195......
-
M Restaurants, Inc. v. San Francisco Local Joint Exec. Bd. Culinary etc. Union
...law which has held that a state anti-injunction statute was preempted. Rather, the opposite is found (C. H. Elle Const. Co. v. Pocatello Bldg. & C. Tr. Council (1956) 77 Idaho 514, 78 Idaho 1, 297 P.2d 519, 522-523.)7 Reversed on other grounds 436 U.S. 180, 98 S.Ct. 1745, 56 L.Ed.2d 209, su......
-
Simpkins v. Southwestern Idaho Painters Dist. Council No. 57
...Pocatello Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. C. H. Elle Constr. Co., 352 U.S. 884, 77 S.Ct. 130, 1 L.Ed.2d 82 (1956), reversing 78 Idaho 1, 297 P.2d 519 (1956).32 I.C. § 48-101 provides, in pertinent part: 'Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restr......
-
M Restaurants, Inc. v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Bd. of Culinary Workers, Bartenders, Hotel, Motel and Club Service Workers
...has held that a state anti-injunction statute was preempted. Rather, the opposite is found (C. H. Elle Const. Co. v. Pocatello Bldg. & C. Tr. Council (1956) 78 Idaho 1, 297 P.2d 519, 522-523). ...