Hyde Park Dairies, Inc. v. International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 795

• Citation: 182 Kan. 440,321 P.2d 564
• Decision Date: 14 February 1958
• Docket Number: No. 40543,40543
• Parties: HYDE PARK DAIRIES, Inc., Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, STABLEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 795, Affiliated with American Federation of Labor and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, an Unincorporated Labor Organization or Association; S. E. Smith, Individually, and as Business Agent of said Labor Organization; and all othe members, agents and representatives of said Labor Organization whose names are unknown to Plaintiff and therefore cannot be given, as individuals and Representatives of said Labor Organization, Appellants.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Kansas

Page 564

321 P.2d 564

182 Kan. 440

HYDE PARK DAIRIES, Inc., Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS STABLEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 795 Affiliated with American Federation of Labor and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America, an Unincorporated Labor Organization or Association; S. E. Smith, Individually, and as Business Agent of said Labor Organization; and all othe members, agents and representatives of said Labor Organization whose names are unknown to Plaintiff and therefore cannot be given, as individuals and Representatives of said Labor Organization, Appellants.

No. 40543.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Feb. 14, 1958.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The record examined in a labor dispute 'affecting' interstate commerce and held where a union is designated as the bargaining agent of the employees and the objective of its peaceful picketing is to obtain recognition and to consummate a collective bargaining agreement, such picketing is reasonably within the protection of Section 157 (29 U.S.C.A. § 157) and the prohibition of Section 158(a)(5) (29 U.S.C.A. § 158[a]), the dispute is, therefore, pre-empted under the National Labor Relations Act and the state court is without jurisdiction to enjoin under the laws of Kansas.

2. Where Congress has vested in the National Labor Relations Board jurisdiction over labor relations matters 'affecting' interstate commerce, Congress has pre-empted the field by placing exclusive jurisdiction in the National Labor Relations Board and completely displaced state power to deal with such labor matters. Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 598, 1 L.Ed.2d 601.

3. Stranger picketing does not in any way defeat the primary jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board in an otherwise pre-empted case under the National Labor Relations Act.

4. Following Asphalt Paving, Inc., v. International Brotherhood, etc., Local Union, 181 Kan. 775, 317 P.2d 349 and the authorities cited therein, the state court should, in deference to the National Labor Relations Board, decline jurisdiction of an action for injunctivn relief, where the facts alleged reasonably bring the controversy within the sections of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, prohibiting those practices, and where the conduct, if not prohibited by the federal Act, may be reasonably deemed to come within the protection afforded by that act.

5. Section 157 (29 U.S.C.A. § 157) protects the right of employees to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.

6. Section 158(a)(5) (29 U.S.C.A. § 158[a]) prohibits and makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 159(a).

7. Essentially it is not within the power or competence of a court--state or federal--to determine whether an activity is in fact protected or prohibited by the Act. Ultimately only the National Labor Relations Board can make this determination. In determining, therefore, whether an activity is protected or prohibited a state court need only to determine that the facts reasonably bring the controversy within the sections and if so should decline jurisdiction.

8. In a limited area of disputes 'affecting' interstate commerce, more fully defined in the opinion, where the activity is neither protected nor prohibited by the federal Act, a state may exercise jurisdiction.

9. To determine the lawful or unlawful purpose of activities sought to be enjoined in a labor dispute under either the federal Act or state law no one fact is necessarily conclusive and the court must examine all of the facts and circumstances of each case.

Russell Cranmer, of Wichita, argued the cause and Payne H. Ratner, Louise Mattox, Payne H. Ratner, Jr., Dale B. Stinson, Jr., Cliff W. Ratner, William L. Fry, Bernard V. Borst, A. Wayne Murphy, D. Clifford Allison, and Gerald D. Lasswell, all of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellants.

Carl T. Smith, of Wichita, argued the cause and George B. Powers, John F. Eberhardt, Stuart R. Carter, Robert C. Foulston, Malcolm Miller, Robert N. Partridge, Robert M. Siefkin, Richard C. Harris, and Gerald Sawatzky, all of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.

HALL, Justice.

This is an appeal from a temporary injunction issued by the district court of Sedgwick County against the appellant labor union.

On May 25, 1956, the plaintiff appellee, Hyde Park Dairies, Inc., filed a petition in the district court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, praying for injunction against the defendant appellant union and its business agent.

The petition alleged: that the plaintiff was a Kansas corporation engaged exclusively in the business of manufacturing and selling ice cream, milk and other dairy products solely within the state of Kansas; that the plaintiff owned, operated and conducted its business in Wichita, Kansas; that all the products processed at its plant together with other dairy products distributed by it, were sold and distributed within the state of Kansas and none outside the state of Kansas; that in connection with this operation the plaintiff employed approximately eighteen (18) individuals as truck drivers who delivered plaintiff's products within the city of Wichita; that the relation between the plaintiff and employees had always been harmonious and satisfactory and that no grievance existed between them.

The petition then further alleged: that the defendants caused their agents, servants and/or members, none of whom were employed by plaintiff, to patrol or picket on and over the entrance of the markets and grocery stores in Wichita, Kansas, where the plaintiff delivered its products and that in addition to such patrolling and picketing these persons also delivered to each and every individual entering these markets and grocery stores a pamphlet entitled 'The Hyde Park Story'; that as a result of such activities at least one market notified plaintiff and did in fact cease doing business with the plaintiff.

That plaintiff was deprived of his right to carry on business and that such picketing and distribution of literature was carried on with the purpose of inflicting irreparable damage to plaintiff's business.

That the defendants were engaged in a combination conspiracy to injure or destroy the good will, trade, business and/or property of plaintiff.

That these activities of the defendants were in violation of the laws of the state of Kansas and in particular in violation of Chapter 44, Article 8, 1955 Supplement to the General Statutes of Kansas 1949.

The plaintiff prayed that the defendants be restrained and enjoined from:

(a) Picketing and patrolling directed against the plaintiff beyond the area of its plant at 943 McLean Boulevard, Wichita, Kansas, and in particular from picketing and partolling directed against the plaintiff at the stores and markets described in the petition and coercing and intimidating customers of said retail stores who sell dairy products of the plaintiff by distributing material directed against the plaintiff and its products;

(b) Continuing its conspiracy;

(c) From attempting to coerce plaintiff or its customers;

(d) From combining, agreeing or conspiring in any manner to injure or destroy the good will, trade, business and/or property of plaintiff, etc.

The next day, May 26, 1956, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the plaintiff's petition. In brief, this motion was that the plaintiff's business affected interstate commerce and any dispute involved was within the meaning of the Labor Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq.) and that the district court was without jurisdiction to hear the controversy.

In order to expedite the matter before the court the parties agreed to an immediate hearing and stipulated to all the uncontroverted facts of the case.

While the parties could not agree on the times, places and exact nature of all events leading up to the picketing, these additional essential facts are stated in the record:

Some time in January, 1956, some five months before the picketing and injunction, fourteen of the eighteen truck driver employees of the plaintiff authorized by election the defendant union as their collective bargaining agent. The union notified the plaintiff that it had so been designated but the plaintiff declined to so negotiate. The union then petitioned the regional director of the NLRB for an investigation and certification of its representation. On March 14, 1956, the regional director declined stating:

'* * * as there is insufficient evidence of effect of the Company's operations upon interstate commerce to meet the jurisdictional requirements of the National Labor Relations Board. * * *'

The union then petitioned the State Commissioner of Labor to assume jurisdiction and to determine the representative of the employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. Pursuant to this petition the State Labor Commissioner caused an election to be held. Thirteen of the eighteen employees designated the defendant union as its bargaining representative. The State Labor Commission notified the plaintiff of the results of the election.

Thereafter and up until the time of the picketing and injunction the parties were unable to agree by stipulation as to the time, place and circumstances of defendant union efforts to negotiate with the plaintiff. The defendant union introduced as exhibits a number of letters written to plaintiff Hyde Park Dairies, Inc., in an effort to negotiate.

The matter was decided by the district court on the pleadings and stipulations of the parties, and on the 25th day of May the court...