Dean v. Scott Paper Co., Southern Division, 1 Div. 478
Decision Date | 03 April 1969 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 478 |
Citation | 284 Ala. 115,222 So.2d 701 |
Parties | , 70 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3330 George W. DEAN et al. v. SCOTT PAPER COMPANY, SOUTHERN DIVISION. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Simon & Wood, Mobile, for appellants.
Armbrecht, Jackson & DeMouy, Mobile, for appellee.
Scott Paper Company, Southern Division, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania and doing business in the city and county of Mobile, Alabama. It filed a bill against the appellants in this case and several other individuals and several labor unions alleging that on November 15, 1965, Scott Paper Company, Southern Division, made and entered into a collective bargaining contract with the respondent labor organizations governing the payment of wages, working conditions, and other matters, at its place of business in Mobile, Alabama, for the period from June 1, 1965 to June 1, 1968. The complaint alleged that Scott Paper Company, Southern Division, had fulfilled the conditions of and obligations imposed upon it by the said collective bargaining agreement with each of the labor organizations named in the bill as respondents. The contract involved contains the following clause:
"During the term of this Agreement, and while negotiations for any change in or renewal of this Agreement are in progress (during which time the provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect) the Company agrees that there shall be no lockout of the members of the Unions at its Southern Division, and the Union agrees, during said period, not to cause or permit its members to cause and that none of its members shall take part in any strike of any kind or description whatsoever, walkout, or in any other interference or stoppage, total or partial, of the Company's operations at its Southern Division."
The bill alleged that while the complainant had done and performed everything required of it under the contract with the respondents, the respondent labor organizations, their officers, their representatives, members, and each of them, in violation of its contract, and particularly the "No Strike" clause contained in that contract, had not performed and fulfilled their obligations and duties under the contract including performing the work called for and required to be performed by them thereunder.
The bill alleged that the respondents and their members, officers, etc. had failed and refused to perform their duties under the collective bargaining agreement and that picket lines had been placed at the complainant's place of business, all in violation of the agreement. The bill further alleged that the presidents of each of the local unions had advised Scott Paper Company that the strike and refusal to work was a "wildcat" strike and the presidents of each local advised Scott Paper Company that the strike was in violation of the contract. It was also alleged that no labor dispute was pending between Scott Paper Company and its employees nor any labor organizations representing any of the employees.
The bill sought the issuance of a temporary writ of injunction or restraining order enjoining the respondents from breaching the contract between Scott Paper Company and the labor organizations, and from illegally interfering with or preventing the performance of the contract, or from encouraging or abetting the breach of the contract by others.
The court issued the injunction.
The appellants here, Dean, Winters, and Shuler, filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court contending that the Circuit Court of Mobile County had no jurisdiction over the subject matter but rather that the matter complained of was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. Only these three persons, who were respondents below, have appealed from the ruling of the Circuit Court of Mobile County and assigned as error the trial court's decree overruling their plea to the jurisdiction. Therefore, the first question before us is whether or not the court below had jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case.
However, that general proposition does not compel the conclusion that the violation of a No Strike Clause in a collective bargaining agreement constitutes an unfair labor practice within the meaning of the Labor Management Relations Act. As Justice Traynor went on to note in the California case, supra:
(Emphasis added.) Citing Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 348 U.S. 437, 75 S.Ct. 489, 99 L.Ed. 510.
The Supreme Court of the United States in Association of Westinghouse, etc. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., supra, in discussing the Act quoted from the Congressional debates as follows:
* * *."
It is the contention of appellants that the National Labor Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter involved in this controversy.
Decisions from other courts refute that contention. In Radio Corporation of America v. Local 780, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, 160 So.2d 150 (Fla.App.1964), cert. denied 380 U.S. 973, 85 S.Ct. 1335, 14 L.Ed.2d 269 (1965), the District Court of Appeals (Fla.) reversed a finding by the lower court that it did not have jurisdiction. The decision in that case cited with approval a statement made by the court in A.I. Gage Plumbing Supply Company, Inc. v. Local 300 of the International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Local 1127 of Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. Blackburn's Mfg. Co.
...(1974); Smith v. Evening News Ass'n, 371 U.S. 195, 83 S.Ct. 267, 9 L.Ed.2d 246 (1962). This court has so held in Dean v. Scott Paper Co., 284 Ala. 115, 222 So.2d 701 (1969). If, therefore, there was a valid contract existing between the Company and the International, the exclusive bargainin......
-
Fitts v. Fitts, 6 Div. 603
... ... (1) The decree rendered in the divorce proceedings ... ...