Ex parte Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO
| Decision Date | 06 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 284,AFL-CIO |
| Citation | 286 Ala. 191,238 So.2d 544 |
| Parties | , 63 Lab.Cas. P 52,373 Ex parte AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA,, etc. In re PREPMORE APPAREL, INC., a Corp. v. AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA,, etc., et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Bedford & Bedford, Russellville, for petitioner.
Taylor & Taylor, Russellville, for respondent in certiorari.
One of the respondents of a bill in equity seeks review, by petition for certiorari, of a decree holding petitioner guilty of contempt for violating an injunction.
The complainant is an Alabama corporation and operates a factory at Russellville in Franklin County.
One of the respondents to the bill is an unincorporated labor union. The union was found guilty of contempt and is the petitioner for certiorari.
The other respondents to the bill are six individual persons. The complainant avers, on information and belief, that these six persons are officers, agents, or employees of the respondent union.
On December 14, 1966, complainant filed its verified bill of complaint averring as follows:
Some of the employees at complainant's plant, who, as complainant is informed and believes are members of the union, have gone out on strike.
Since the beginning of the strike, various persons, alleged to be members or agents of the union, including various ones of the individual respondents, have been and are engaged in repeated and continued violent and unlawful acts as follows:
(a) They congregate in large numbers at or near complainant's plant and on certain streets and private driveways leading from the streets the parking lot, ground, and buildings which constitute the plant.
(b) They threaten and assault at said location other employees of complainant and direct abusive and threatening language at them because such other employees work or seek to work at the plant, and they likewise threaten, assault, and direct such language at other persons seeking to come upon or leave the plant and premises in the regular course of business with complainant.
(c) They hold shut the doors of automobiles in which other employees of complainant are riding as they seek to enter and leave the plant.
(d) They hurl rocks or other missiles against such vehicles as the vehicles enter and leave the plant premises.
(e) They have affixed tacks and nails into the tires of working employees while they were parked on the premises.
(f) Otherwise, in various ways, they threaten, abuse, intimidate, and assault employees of complainant because such employees work or seek to work at the plant.
Complainant and others have called the aforesaid facts to the attention of appropriate law enforcement officers, but said acts are still repeatedly and continuously occurring. Complainant and its employees have no adequate remedy at law and will be irreparably damaged unless such acts are enjoined by the court.
Complainant prays that respondents be temporarily and permanently enjoined from committing violence, assaults, or threats upon or otherwise interfering with complainant's employees; from congregating at the entrances to the plant or at any other location in the general vicinity thereof; and that the number of pickets be fixed at three pickets at each of the four corners of the plant.
On December 14, 1966, on ex parte application of complainant, the judge of the Circuit Court of Franklin County ordered that the register issue a temporary injunction as prayed, upon complainant's making bond for $750.00 to be approved by the register of the court.
On the same day, complainant filed and the register approved an injunction bond for $750.00. The bond was signed on behalf of complainant, 'By Don Simpson, General Manager,' and by Don Simpson and Bailey Marion, 'Individually.' On the same day the register issued a temporary injunction pursuant to the judge's order.
On the next day, December 15, 1966, respondents filed a motion to dissolve the injunction averring that '. . . the person signing the Bill of Complaint does not have authority to bind Prepmore Apparel, Inc., a Corporation and therefore is not a proper party to obtain said temporary injunction.' (Emphasis Supplied) Respondents pray that this matter be set forthwith for a hearing and for dissolution of the injunction.
On December 16, 1966, a copy of the injunction was served on 'Ed Blair, Southern Organizer for Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, an unincorporated association.'
The record shows that on December 16, 1966, service was had upon three individual respondents, namely, Ed Blair, Reba Montgomery, and Mattie Lane.
On December 15, 1966, counsel for respondents handed to counsel for complainant a copy of an amendment to respondents' motion to dissolve. The amendment was filed December 16, 1966. In the amendment, respondents allege as ground for dissolution that there is no equity in the bill.
On December 20, 1966, complainant filed its petition averring that on the morning of December 15, 1966, some of complainant's employees attempted to enter the plant and were attacked with rocks and stones, the roads were blocked, and the employees were threatened and were ordered to leave by the pickets; the pickets exceeded the number allowed by the court order; that on December 15, 1966, at 3:15 p.m. and at 15-minute intervals thereafter, complainant's general manager announced over the radio that an injunction had been obtained and requested the employees to report for work on Friday, December 16, 1966; that on the morning of December 16, 1966, several of complainant's employees came to the plant to work and found the streets blocked with pickets; that the crowds of pickets were threatening and the employees were made fearful of entering the plant; that later on the 16th, some of the pickets moved out upon Underwood Road and threw rocks at two of complainant's supervisors who were passing along Underwood Road; that pickets have trespassed on complainant's property at will in violation of the court's order and have littered complainant's property with paper, scrap wood, rocks, and other foreign objects; and that the respondent union and the individual respondents have exhibited contempt for the orders of the court in that they have directed the acts above described and, in some instances, have made threatening phone calls to some of complainant's employees who wished to work. Complainant prays that respondents be cited for contempt.
On January 4, 1967, complainant amended its petition by adding the averment that on January 3, 1967, pickets at the plant tried to prevent two of complainant's employees from entering and took hold of one employee and shook her and assaulted her.
On January 5, 1967, a rule issued to respondents to appear on January 18, 1967, and show cause why they should not be punished for contempt on account of the things set out in the petition filed by complainant seeking to have respondents cited for contempt. Hearing on the motion to dissolve the injunction was set for the same day.
Testimony was heard ore tenus on January 18, 1967.
On January 18, 1967, the court overruled the motion to dissolve.
On January 19, 1967, the court rendered a decree finding that the individual respondents were not guilty of contempt, but finding the union guilty of contempt and assessing a fine against it. 1
The respondent union subsequently filed its petition in this court for certiorari to review the decree of the circuit court.
In the first section of its argument in brief, petitioner says:
As we understand the argument, petitioner says the decree holding it in contempt ought to be quashed because the court permitted the introduction of inadmissible evidence. This court has said:
'. . .. Ex parte Seymore, 264 Ala. 689, 693, 89 So.2d 83, 87.
Error to quash or reverse the decree of contempt is not shown by the first section of petitioner's argument.
The second section of petitioner's argument is entitled as follows:
To support this proposition, petitioner cites Root v. McDonald, 260 Mass. 344, 157 N.E. 684, and Brutkiewicz v. State, 280 Ala. 218, 191 So.2d 222. Petitioner, referring to the instant case as we understand it, says in brief:
'. . .. Nothing that Petitioner did exhibited an (sic) contemptous (sic) attitude toward the court.'
It is true that the instant record shows no contempt committed in the presence of the court, but petitioner is not charged with such contempt. The Massachusetts court said:
'. . .. (260 Mass. at 358, 157 N.E.2d at 688)
Without necessarily agreeing with the opinion of the Massachusetts Court in every particular, we are of opinion that violation of an injunction is 'wrong enough' to justify a finding of contempt. It is not clear to us just what petitioner is arguing under Proposition II, but we are of opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte United Steelworkers of America, Local Union 7533
...pertinent decisions of this Court, i.e., Ex parte Morehead, 281 Ala. 71, 199 So.2d 82 (1967), and Ex parte Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 286 Ala. 191, 238 So.2d 544 (1970), are consistent with Claiborne and O'Neal, which we deem the contemporary authority in this state. In O'Neal......
- Rudolph v. State