Hattiesburg Bldg. and Const. Trades Council v. Mississippi Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 February 1968
• Docket Number: No. 44634,44634
• Parties: HATTIESBURG BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL and Jim D. Touchstone v. MISSISSIPPI MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 99

207 So.2d 99

HATTIESBURG BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL and Jim

D. Touchstone v. MISSISSIPPI MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.

No. 44634.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 19, 1968.

Evans & Sykes, Gulfport, for appellant.

Holmes & Dukes, Hattiesburg, for appellee.

INZER, Justice:

This is an appeal by Hattiesburg Building and Construction Trades Council and Jim D. Touchstone from a decree of the Chancery Court of Forrest County wherein that court entered a final decree making permanent temporary injunction prohibiting appellants from picketing the job sites where appellee Mississippi Mechanical Contractors, Inc. had contracts to do certain mechanical work.

Appellee is a plumbing, heating and air conditioning contractor. It is a Mississippi corporation and does business in Mississippi and Louisiana. It had contracts with the Hattiesburg Country Club and Forrest General Hospital to do certain work. A. K. McInnis, Jr., Inc., a corporation, had the general construction contract for both of these jobs. However, appellee was not a subcontractor of McInnis. Its contract was directly with the country club and the hospital. All of appellee's employees, with the exception of an office manager and a bookkeeper, are members of the United Association of Plumbers and Steam Fitters Local No. 817 (AFL).

Appellant Hattiesburg Building and Trades Council is composed of several local unions working in the area including Local 817. Appellant Jim Touchstone is its president. Each local union elects one of its members to serve on the council. The council entered into negotiations with McInnis and other general contractors in the area in an attempt to get them to sign collective bargaining contracts. Being unable to get McInnis to agree to the contract, the council caused pickets to be placed on the job site at the country club and the hospital. When this was done, the employees of appellee refused to cross the picket line and appellee's part of the work was stopped.

On November 15, 1966, appellee filed a bill of complaint seeking an injunction to restrain appellants from picketing the job site at the country club. The bill alleged that it had a contract with the club to do certain plumbing, heating and air conditioning and that it had entered into a performance bond to guarantee the successful completion of the contract within the given length of time and the work was to be done so as not to impede other contractors' work on the job. It was alleged that appellants had set up the picket lines and appellee's employees, all being members of Local 817, were not willing to cross the picket line, causing appellee's part of the work to be stopped. Further, that the employees of McInnis, the general contractor, continued to work and the country club had notified appellee that he was holding up the work on the other contractors and unless appellee made immediate steps to comply with his contract, action would be taken to terminate it.

The bill also alleged that there were no violations of the National Labor Relations Act but that there was a violation of the Mississippi Right-to-Work law and that a picket line should not be permitted under this constitutional provision when the same is identified solely with the question of whether or not some unions or some third party had taken the law into its own hands to the extent of seeking to require others to join a union or to require others to employ only union labor, by setting up a picket line to cut off work rights, work privileges and work opportunity.

The bill further alleged that on November 14, 1966, a picket line had been set up by appellant and appellee and its employees were innocent by-standers and were being adversely affected by the actions of appellant resulting in its great detriment. That appellee was entitled to injunctive relief so that its status quo relation and identity might exist until the rights of the parties were determined. Further, that there was no claim of violation of the National Labor Relations Act, no claim of jurisdictional dispute, and no claim under any laws of the United States or regulations of any other agencies. That upon the sign carried by the pickets appeared the words:

'A. K. McInnis

Unfair

No Signature

On Builders Trade Contract.

H. B. & C. T. C.'

and it was this which was blocking appellee's work and making it impossible to proceed, causing it great losses and the possibility of the claim of breach of contract and irreparable losses which could continue until there was termination of the picket lines; that appellee had no adequate remedy at law and it was entitled to a prohibitory injunction without notice to prevent the continuance of the irreparable injury.

The bill prayed for the issuance of a fiat directing the clerk to issue the writ of injunction and for process upon appellant and asked that upon final hearing the injunction be made permanent and a monetary decree be entered against appellant for such amount as the testimony might justify.

On the same date, a fiat was issued directing the clerk to issue the preliminary mandatory injunction as prayed for upon the execution of a bond in the sum of $3,000. The bond was executed and the temporary injunction was issued.

On November 21 appellee filed another bill of complaint seeking to enjoin appellants from picketing the job site at Forrest General Hospital. The allegations in this bill were similar to those in the Bill of Complaint filed in the country club controversy. A preliminary injunction was issued without notice.

Appellants filed a demurrer, a motion to dissolve and an answer with seven affirmative defenses to each of the bills of complaint. In addition to denying that they were in any way attempting to violate the Right-to-Work law, appellants affirmatively pled in their answer that the court had no jurisdiction for the reason that the bill of complaint shows on its face that there was a labor dispute within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S. § 151 et seq. Appellants also pled that to enjoin all picketing, including peaceful picketing, despite the fact that there was no allegation of violence, trespass, damage, or personal injuries would be in violation of the constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Mississippi. Appellants also pled that by picketing they were not violating any of the laws of the state and that the picketing by the union was a right guaranteed by the constitution and the act of Congress. Appellants filed as exhibit to their answer a copy of the contract that they had been trying to negotiate with McInnis.

Appellee answered the affirmative matter set up in the answer and denied that the case was one to fall within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.

At the regular December 1966 term of the court, it was stipulated that the two cases would be consolidated for the purpose of the hearing. The evidence reflected that appellant, Touchstone, had as a representative of the council been trying to get McInnis and other general contractors in the area to sign collective bargaining agreements with the union; that he and McInnis had discussed the matter and when he was unable to get McInnis to sign the agreement, the council voted to place pickets on the two job sites in an attempt to get McInnis and other contractors to sign an agreement with the union. The evidence also reflects that if union members crossed the picket lines, they were subject to having charges preferred against them and could be fined and expelled from the union. All of appellee's employees refused to cross the picket line and appellee was unable to proceed ceed with his contract.

Mr. E. L. Nix, business manager of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Local 817, was called as an adverse witness and he admitted that the Local had no dispute with appellee but as a representative of the Local on the council, he had voted to place pickets at the job site in order to attempt to get McInnis to sign a collective bargaining contract with the...