Gruet Motor Car Co. v. Briner
| Decision Date | 14 November 1949 |
| Docket Number | 41062 |
| Parties | Gruet Motor Car Company, a Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Nelson Briner and Ralph Vossmeyer, Defendants-Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
From the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Civil Appeal Judge Francis E. Williams
Appeal Transferred
This action as originally filed was in two counts, one in equity and one at law, both counts being based upon an alleged violation of Sec. 8301 R.S. 1939. In the first count plaintiff sought an injunction against certain action and conduct of the defendants, including picketing, which plaintiff charged constituted a conspiracy in restraint of trade and an illegal boycott that interfered with plaintiff's business, employees and customers. The second count was based upon the facts alleged in the first count and, on account thereof, plaintiff asked damages in the sum of $2000 up to the time of filing the petition and it was further alleged that plaintiff would continue to suffer loss and damage at the rate of $300 per day until defendants should cease the actions complained of. Under Sec. 8308 R.S 1939, plaintiff prayed for treble damages, costs and a reasonable attorney fee. A temporary injunction was issued on the date the petition was filed. After the filing of defendants' answer and motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order, a hearing uas had on the merits before the court "sitting in equity." Thereafter, the count at law for money damages was, by leave of court, dismissed by plaintiff, without prejudice, and the court entered a decree on the first count whereby the temporary injunction was made permanent. Defendants have appealed.
Appellant Briner is the assistant business representative of a labor union known as the International Association of Machinists, District No. 9, and appellant Vossmeyer is an assistant business representative of a labor union known as the Teamsters Union Local No. 618 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.
Respondent operates a machine shop and is engaged in the sale and service of automobiles at 4725-4733 McPherson Avenue in the Citv of St. Louis. At the time in question it employed about twenty-five persons, some fifteen of whom were engaged in the repair and servicing of automobiles. None of these employees belonged to any union, nor, at the time herein mentioned, did any union have contractual or bargaining rights in respondent's shop. As indicated, supra, this action arises out of the action and conduct of the appellants in instituting and carrying out certain picketing of respondent's place of business and out of their efforts to make the picketing effective.
Respondent is a member of an organization known as the "Greater St. Louis Automotive Association, Inc." Approximately 130 to 140 automobile dealers in the metropolitan area of St. Louis belong to this association. The appellants alleged in their answer that the two unions which they represent had cooperated with the said Greater St. Louis Automotive Association, Inc., in the preparation of a model or suggested form of labor contract to be submitted to the members of the association, the form providing for a written contract between the employer, the two labor unions and the "Greater St. Louis Automotive Association, Inc." In their pleadings appellants further alleged that, some time prior to the commencement of the picketing complained of, they had requested respondent to enter into a contractual relationship vith their respective unions; that 95% of the other members of the association mentioned, supra, had signed contracts with the unions and were operating union shops, but that respondent had declined to do so. There was testimony in support of these allegations and to show that both Briner and Vossmeyer had made various calls on Mr. Gruet, the president of respondent, and had talked with some of respondent's employees, but that respondent's shop had not been unionized. Appellant Briner had last called on Mr. Gruet on Friday before the picketing began on Monday. As between respondent and its employees, no labor dispute existed or ever had existed. Appellants concede that "the record shows that no labor dispute existed between plaintiff and its employees, or between plaintiff and the pickets."
Appellant Briner began picketing respondent's place on Monday morning, April 28, 1947. He carried an umbrella on which was printed the name of the union, Machinists, District No. 9 and the word "Unfair." He was accompanied by another picket carrying a similar umbrella. After Tuesday, all umbrellas showed the word "Non-Union" instead of the word "Unfair." Appellant Vossmeyer joined the picket line Monday afternoon. He carried an umbrella with the name of the Teamsters Union and the word "Non-Union." After the Teamsters Union was represented on the picket line, appellants only visited and supervised the picket line from time to time and there were usually only two pickets present in front of respondent's premises with one umbrella for each union. One picket testified that he received instructions from both appellants with reference to the picketing. The picketing continued until Thursday, May 1, 1947, when the temporary injunction was issued. In view of the conclusions we have reached as to this court's jurisdiction of this appeal, it will not be necessary to further review the detailed evidence concerning the manner in which the picketing was conducted, the efforts to make it effective and the effect of the picketing and other acts and conduct of appellants upon respondent, its business, customers and employees, nor need we further review the evidence relied upon to establish the alleged conspiracy.
Appellants invoke the jurisdiction of this court on the theory that by their pleadings, as filed in the trial court, "issues are raised and contentions made that the relief sought in plaintiff's petition and granted by the trial court infringes upon and violates liberties, rights and privileges granted to defendants by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Missouri." In this connection only Art. V. Sec. 3 of the Constitution of Missouri, 1945, is cited.
The presence of a supposed constitutional question arises from the fact that appellants in their "Amended Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order, Return to Order to Show Cause, and Ansuer" alleged that they picketed respondent's premises for the purpose of informing the public that respondent was a non-union employer and operated a non-union shop, and that any judicial restraint thereof, in view of the facts and circumstances surrounding such picketing, would be and constitute a denial to the appellants of (1) due process of lau in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (2) their right of peaceable assemblage with other persons for their common good in violation of Art. 1, Sec. 9 of the Missouri Constitution; (3) their right to be free to say, write or publish, or otherwise communicate whatever t...
To continue reading
Request your trial