Fair Share Organization v. Kroger Co., 29792
Decision Date | 23 March 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 29792,29792 |
Citation | 165 N.E.2d 606,240 Ind. 461 |
Parties | FAIR SHARE ORGANIZATION, Hilbert L. Bradley, Julius James, Willie Byrd, Jr., David C. Mitchell, Maurice Preston, individually and as representatives of all members of said defendant, Fair Share Organization, Appellants, v. KROGER COMPANY, Local 1460 Retail Clerks International Association, AFLCIO, Appellees. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
F. Laurence Anderson, Jr., Anderson, Hicks & Anderson, Hilbert L. Bradley, Gary, for appellants.
John Preston Ward, Indianapolis, Max Cohen, Gary, for amicus curiae.
Barrett, Barrett & McNagney, J. A. Bruggeman, Ft. Wayne, Barce & Barce, Kentland, for appellees.
Robert Karmel, Chicago, Ill., George Sammons, Sr., Sammons & Sammons, Kentland, for intervenors.
This appeal from the granting of a temporary injunction by the court below was taken by appellant to the Appellate Court pursuant to Burns' § 40-510 (1952 Replacement). 1 The Appellate Court, upon appellee's motion, transferred the cause to this court on the theory that the case did not involve or grow out of a labor dispute and that an appeal from the granting of a temporary injunction under Burns' § 4-214 (1946 Replacement) 2 should be taken from the trial court to the Supreme Court.
We believe the finding of facts entered by the trial court shows that this cause involved or grew out of a labor dispute as defined in Burns' § 40-513 (1952 Replacement). 3 The finding was in part as follows:
'On and after September 19, 1958, the defendants picketed and caused to be picketed one or more of said three stores for purpose of forcing plaintiff to change its employment practices; and for the purpose of forcing plaintiff to engage in selective hiring of Negro employees based on the proportion of Negro customers who patronize its stores, which would result in requiring the plaintiff to discharge or transfer competent white employees and replace them with Negroes; * * *.'
We believe the lower court's further statement that:
'There is no labor dispute existing between the plaintiff and its employees or the unions which lawfully, properly and exclusively represent them in collective bargaining.'
is ambiguous but that under the facts found by the court heretofore set out, it could only be concluded that the case involved or grew out of a labor dispute as defined in the Indiana statutes. See: New Negro Alliance v. Grocery Co., 1938, 303 U.S. 552, 58 S.Ct. 703, 82 L.Ed. 1012, involving a similar statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peters v. Poor Sisters of St. Francis Seraph of Perpetual Adoration, Inc.
... ... the defendants were prevented from having a fair trial in this cause, to-wit: ... (a) The court ... attempt to regulate union internal organization rather than collective bargaining.' 42 Ind.Law ... 135, etc., v. Merchandise Warehouse Co., Inc., 127 Ind.App. 57, 61, 132 N.E.2d 715, 717, ... See also Fair Share [148 Ind.App. 463] Organization v. Kroger Co., ... ...
-
Fair Share Organization, Inc. v. Mitnick
... ... Kroger Company (1960), 240 Ind. 461, 165 N.E.2d 606, in which that court followed the United States ... 1460 of Retail Clerks Union (1939), 216 Ind. 363, 24 N.E.2d 280; Fulford v. Smith Cabinet Mfg. Co. (1948), 118 Ind.App. 326, 77 N.E.2d 755; Bartenders, etc. Union Local 103 A. F. of L. of South ... ...
- Fair Share Organization v. Kroger Co.