Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 795 v. Kansans for the Right to Work

• Decision Date: 20 January 1962
• Docket Number: Nos. 42319,42318,s. 42319
• Parties: CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 795, Appellee, v. KANSANS FOR THE RIGHT TO WORK, a corporation, Appellant. S. E. SMITH, Appellee, v. KANSAS FOR THE RIGHT TO WORK, a corporation, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 308

368 P.2d 308

189 Kan. 115

CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 795, Appellee, v. KANSANS FOR THE RIGHT TO WORK, a corporation, Appellant.

S. E. SMITH, Appellee, v. KANSAS FOR THE RIGHT TO WORK, a corporation, Appellant.

Nos. 42319, 42318.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Jan. 20, 1962.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A petition based upon an alleged libelous newspaper publication was filed by a Teamsters Local Labor Union against Kansans for the Right to Work, a corporation, and was challenged in the lower court by demurrer. On appeal from an order overruling the demurrer, the petition, drawn on the theory of libel per se, is examined, and it is held, upon the facts and circumstances more particularly set forth in the opinion, that no statements therein contained are reasonably susceptible of constituting libel per se.

2. Words libelous per se are words which are defamatory in themselves and which intrinsically, by their very use, without innuendo and the aid of extrinsic proof, import injury and damage to the person concerning whom they are written. They are words from which malice is implied and damage is conclusively presumed to result. (Following Karrigan v. Valentine, 184 Kan. 783, 339 P.2d 52.)

3. Where libel per se is claimed, the question presented is whether the words on their face, without explanation or extrinsic proof, would necessarily, or as a natural and immediate consequence, cause damage.

4. Whether a newspaper article is libelous per se is a question of law for the court to determine.

5. In determining whether a newspaper publication is defamatory per se each part thereof must be considered in relation to the others rater than separately. The words or phrases must not be taken out of context. The entire publication must be fairly and reasonably construed as a whole.

Marvin J. Martin, Wichita, argued the cause, and John D. McBride, Wichita, was with him on the brief, for appellant.

Frank W. Hylton, Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief, for appellees.

SCHROEDER, Justice.

These are actions for alleged libel. The trial court overruld demurrers challenging the sufficiency of the petitions, and the defendant has duly perfected an appeal from each of such orders, presenting as the sole question whether the respective petitions state sufficient facts to constitute libel per se.

Two separate actions were filed in the district court of Sedgwick County, Kansas. One was filed by the Teamsters Local doing business in Wichita under the caption 'Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 795 v. Kansans for the Right to Work, a corporation.' This case is docketed here as No. 42,319. This suit prays for judgment in the amount of $100,000 actual damages, together with $150,000 punitive damages. A second suit was filed by S. E. Smith, the business agent of this same Teamsters Local, under the caption 'S. E. Smith v. Kansas for the Right to Work, a corporation,' and is docketed here as No. 42,318. This suit prays for judgment in the amount of $100,000 actual damages, together with $150,000 punitive damages. These cases have been consolidated with a stipulation that the decision in No. 42,318 will be controlled by the decision in No. 42,319. Only the latter case has been abstracted and briefed for review by this court and our opinion will be confined to it.

On the 22nd day of July, 1959, the Wichita Local of the Teamsters Union mailed to certain trucking firms a letter advising these firms that the Teamsters intended to picket them beginning July 27, 1959. This letter was signed by S. E. Smith, as president and business representative of the Local Union.

On or about the 2nd day of August, 1959, Kansans for the Right to Work, a corporation, published in two Wichita newspapers copies of the Teamsters' letter together with comments concerning the letter's real meaning and effect. The publication in each of the two Wichita newspapers was identical. The Teamsters' letter as published reads as follows:

'CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS

'LOCAL UNION No. 795

'Wichita 2, Kansas

'July 22, 1959

'CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

'(Addressee's name deleted)

'Dear Sir:

'Local 795, I.B.T., has decided to embark upon a campaign to organize your office and clerical employees. To induce your employees to join this union, we shall begin to picket your establishment on or about the 27th of July, 1959. We assure you that the picketing will be entirely peaceful. We have instructed our pickets not to threaten, intimidate or coerce anyone. If there is any violation of those instructions, please advise us and we shall see to it that corrective action is taken immediately.

'We wish to make it clear to you that Local 795 does not at this time represent, and of course we do not claim to represent, a majority of your office and clerical employees. Local 795 does not ask you to recognize it as exclusive bargaining representative for your employees, or indeed, ask you to recognize it for any purpose at this time. The purpose of our picketing is solely to call to the attention of union members and supporters of organized labor that your office and clerical employees are not members of Local 795.

'We hope that the demonstration of support of Local 795 in its efforts to organize, which this picketing will produce, will persuade your employees to become members of our Local Union. When they do, they will join the thousands of other employees who are affiliated with the great International Brotherhood of Teamsters. In engaging in this picketing campaign, we are speaking for the members of our organization who are employed in businesses like yours and who feel the brunt of the unfair competition of your unorganized employees.

'This point we must emphasize. We are not making any demand upon your Company at this time to agree to or execute any contract with our Union covering any of your employees. Under the law your Company is permitted to recognize and bargain with our Local Union only after a majority of your employees have authorized the Union to represent them. Therefore, even if your Company should now or hereafter offer to recognize our Union or enter into collective bargaining with us our Union would refuse such an offer and we would continue to refuse until your employees lawfully authorize us to represent them. Should your employees desire to join our Union, they may apply for membership at the office of Local 795, 417 East English, Wichita, Kansas, or ask one of the pickets for a membership application card which they can fill out and return to him. When we have received applications from a majority of your employees, we will contact your Company further.

'You should also understand that it is your right under the Constitution of the United States and under the National Labor Relations Act to advise your employees of the economic detriment which you and they will sustain as a result of the withholding of patronage from your concerns by union members and sympathizers as long as they remain non-members of our Union.

'You may, in the exercise of your lawful rights, explain these detriments to your employees and urge them to apply for membership in the Union and thereby acquire for themselves and for your Company the good will of our Union and its friends. You may not, and we are sure that you will not, threaten to take economic reprisal against your employees, or grant them benefits, to coerce their choice in this matter. However, we feel sure that if your employees, who have been carefully taught to look to you for leadership on matters affecting their employment, are convinced that it is your sincere desire that they join the Union, they will quickly realize that acquisition of union membership at the earliest opportunity is in their best interest.

'Yours very truly,

S. E. Smith, President and

Business Representative.

'SES:pe'

Comments upon the foregoing letter as published appeared as follows:

'Is There Any Word for It But 'Blackmail'?

'Mr. & Mrs. Citizen:

'At least six large trucking firms in Wichita are being picketed yet there is no strike, no contract negotiations, no nothing--except blackmail!

'What is happening in Wichita is in open disregard of the Kansas Right to Work law--another example of Hoffaism and the tactics of the puppet leaders who do Hoffa's bidding.

'The picketing in Wichita began after a letter from Sam Smith, local Teamster boss, was sent to the truck line operators. (Smith's letter is reproduced at the right.) It is doubtful if such a letter has ever before been seen in the long history of union boss attempts to deprive American working people of their freedom of choice--and force them to join unions or lose their means of livelihood.

'In absolute disregard of either employer or employee rights and wishes, Sam Smith's letter combines the work of the skilled writer and the ingenuity of the legal practitioner. Lest the full meaning of this letter be lost in its lengthy wordage, this is what the union boss is saying to the Wichita trucking firms:

'* 'We know the law, and the law says we can picket you as an exercise of free speech so long as we do it peacefully.

'* 'We know, also, that our picket at your door will put you out of business because you will not be able to move goods so long as our picket is there.

'* 'We are under no necessity to sell the union to your employees because you will compel them to join our membership as quickly as the picketing shoe starts to pinch.

'* 'There is no occasion for us to use force and violence and risk possible injunction proceedings against us because you, Mr. Employer, will do our job for us. You'll have to--or go out of business.

'* 'We don't care about what your employees think or want. They will join our union or they won't work for you.

'* 'We don't care, either, for the supposed constitutional or moral rights of your employees. They lost their rights when the lawmakers and the courts ceased...