Hanke v. International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local 309

• Decision Date: 02 June 1949
• Docket Number: 30738.
• Citation: 33 Wn.2d 646,207 P.2d 206
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: HANKE et al. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS UNION, LOCAL 309, et al.

207 P.2d 206

33 Wn.2d 646

HANKE et al. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS UNION, LOCAL 309, et al.

No. 30738.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

June 2, 1949

Action by A. E. Hanke and others, copartners doing business under the name and style of Atlas Auto Rebuild against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 309, and others, to enjoin picketing of plaintiffs' business establishment and recover damages for financial loss caused by prior picketing thereof. From a judgment permanently enjoining defendants from picketing plaintiffs' place of business and awarding plaintiffs stipulated damages for prior picketing, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

ROBINSON MALLERY, and BEALS, JJ., dissenting.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Donald A. McDonald, judge.

Bassett & Geisness, Seattle, for appellants.

J. Will Jones, Clarence L. Gere, Seattle, H. C. Vinton, Seattle, for respondents.

STEINERT Justice.

This action was instituted by the plaintiffs to enjoin the defendant union and its representatives from further picketing the plaintiffs' business establishment and to recover damages for the financial loss alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiffs as the result of prior picketing by the defendants.

On the basis of the allegations in the complaint together with facts set forth in the supporting affidavit of one of the plaintiffs, the trial court immediately and without notice issued a restraining order and order to show cause, temporarily prohibiting the defendant union from interfering with, molesting, or injuring the plaintiffs' business by picketing or by any other means, and directing all of the defendants to show cause why a temporary injunction of the same prohibitory effect, pendente lite should not issue.

The defendants seasonably appeared and filed a motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order, on the ground that the order previously issued by the court deprived the defendants of their right of freedom of speech as guaranteed by the first and fourteenth amendments to the constitution of the United States. Attached to and, by reference, made a part of the motion was the affidavit of the defendant business agent of the union, setting forth affirmatively the circumstances under which the picketing had been instituted and intimating the reasons why such activity on the part of the union should not be restrained.

Upon the hearing on the order to show cause and application for temporary injunction, oral testimony was taken coverning all the issues in the case. At the conclusion of the evidence, followed by argument of counsel, the court took the matter under advisement and, thereafter, delivered its memorandum opinion, in which it reviewed the evidence at length and analyzed various judicial decisions bearing on the subject. Pursuant to its memorandum opinion, the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and subsequently entered an order, in the form of a temporary injunction, denying defendants' motion to dissolve the prior temporary restraining order and decreeing that defendants be enjoined, pendente lite, from in any manner picketing the plaintiffs' place of business.

When the action came on later for trial on the merits, the parties stipulated that the cause be submitted to the court for final judgment upon the evidence theretofore introduced on plaintiffs' application for a temporary injunction, and further stipulated that the plaintiffs had sustained demages in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars, as the result of the picketing of their business establishment between the dates of February 12 and February 24, 1948.

The court thereupon entered a decree which reaffirmed its memorandum opinion and its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and ordered that the defendants be permanently enjoined from picketing the plaintiffs' place of business and that plaintiffs have judgment against the defendants, and each of them, in the sum of two hundred fifty dollars, together with their costs and disbursements in the action. Defendants appealed.

There is little, if any, dispute in the evidence. At the times with which we are here particularly concerned with respect to this litigation, respondents, A. E. Hanke and his three sons, L. J. Hanke, R. R. Hanke, and R. M. Hanke, were operating a copartnership business in the city of Seattle, under the firm name of Atlas Auto Rebuild. The father and two of the sons had purchased the business in June, 1946, at which time it included a station and plant for the repair and rebuilding of automobiles, and also a gas station. Shortly after completing that transaction, respondents added to their venture the business of selling used cars. The third son joined the firm in September, 1947.

The parties from whom the respondents acquired the original business had, during their term of operation, kept on display, in a window of the establishment, a teamsters' union shop card, issued to them by the appellant International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 309, which is affiliated with American Federation of Labor and which will hereinafter be referred to simply as Local 309 or as the local union. This shop card was made up of a metal sign, eleven inches by seven inches in size, bearing the insignia of the brotherhood, and proclaiming that 'Union Service' was to be had at the establishment. When respondents purchased the business, they retained the card, allowing it to remain in its accustomed place in the window until shortly Before this controversy arose.

The parent union with which Local 309 is affiliated issues weekly in Seattle its official publication, known as the Washington Teamster, in which, under large attractive headings and subheadings, are listed the names of firms which carry teamster shop cards and for whose support patronage is by the publication solicited. In this list the name of Atlas Auto Rebuild was included, up until the last week in January, 1948.

It appears that respondent A. E. Hanke, father of the other three respondents, had formerly been a member of a shipyard union, but, shortly after the purchase of the service and gas station above mentioned, had transferred his union membership to Local 309. So far as the record herein discloses, none of the respondent sons was ever a member of that local union.

During the first few months of their operation of the business, respondents employed, in the rebuild department of the plant, two body men and a sheet metal worker who, although they were union members, did not belong to Local 309. Late in the fall of 1946, these employees were laid off and have never since been replaced. From that time until the dispute herein arose, in the early part of 1948, respondents have not hired any employees in the operation of any part of their business, but have themselves alone done all the work and labor connected therewith.

Although, as stated above, respondent A. E. Hanke was at one time affiliated with Local 309, he ceased to be a member thereof in January, 1948, by virtue of the fact that his union dues had been in arrears since the preceding September, and further because, on January 27, 1948, he had notified the union that he had no intention of seeking reinstatement. The affidavit of appellant Dick Klinge, business agent for Local 309, establishes the fact that the local union ceased to regard A. E. Hanke as a member after the date last mentioned.

While this action is waged directly between the respondents and Local 309 and its representatives, the actual dispute between them arose out of certain activities and demands stemming from another union, namely, Automobile Drivers and Demonstrators, Local Union No. 882, generally known as the Automobile Salesmen's Union. This particular union, which is also affiliated with American Federation of Labor and is chartered by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, asserts jurisdiction over salesmen of new and used automobiles. Although the Automobile Salesmen's Union, Local 882, is separate and distinct from Local 309, the two are nevertheless closely related in interest.

It appears that on June 12, 1946, the Automobile Salesmen's Union, Local 882, entered into a working agreement with Independent Automobile Dealers Association, by the terms of which agreement all show rooms and used car lots were to close not later than six o'clock p. m. on all week days and were to remain closed on Saturdays, Sundays, and certain specified holidays, Of the 115 used car dealers covered by this agreement, all but ten operated their business without the aid of any hired employees. The respondents, however, were not members of the dealers' association and did not conduct their business in accordance with that agreement. They kept open after six o'clock p. m. whenever it was considered necessary to do so in order to complete the work in hand, and they also sold used cars on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.

At some time prior to January 27, 1948, the appellant Local 309 which was a member of the parent teamsters organization, was notified by Local 882, which was affiliated with the same organization, that Atlas Auto Rebuild, of which the respondents were the sole owners, was selling used cars after six p. m. on week days and also at other times covered by the agreement previously entered into between Local 882 and Independent Automobile Dealers Association. As the result of this communication, representatives of the appellant Local 309 called upon the respondents at their place of business on the date last mentioned. The substance of the conversation that took place...