International Hod Carriers' Bldg. and Common Laborers' Union Local 478, AFL-CIO v. Heftler Const. Co., AFL-CIO
| Decision Date | 10 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | AFL-CIO |
| Citation | 112 So.2d 848 |
| Parties | 44 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2294, 37 Lab.Cas. P 65,536 INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS', BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS' UNION LOCAL 478-, et al., Appellants, v. HEFTLER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation, admitted to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Kastenbaum, Mamber & Gopman, Miami Beach, and Kaplan & Ser, Miami, for appellants.
Williams & Salomon, Miami, for appellee.
The appellant unions are seeking a reversal of a final decree permanently enjoining them from striking or boycotting the appellee's project at Carol City, Florida. Said decree also held the appellee entitled to recover compensatory and exemplary damages.
On the present state of the record, we are compelled to dispose of this case on jurisdictional grounds.
The appellee, Heftler Construction Co., the general contractor at the 'Carol City' construction project, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Dade County in which it sought damages and an injunction against the appellants for conducting an alleged illegal strike and boycott against the appellee's project. The alleged purpose of this activity was to force the appellee to stop doing business with a non-union supplier of concrete. On March 20, 1958, a hearing was held before Circuit Court Judge Robert H. Anderson at which time he denied the appellants' Motion to Dismiss which attacked the sufficiency of the complaint and the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter. Judge Anderson, after a hearing, granted the appellee's petition for temporary injunction. On interlocutory appeal, the District Court of Appeal, Third District, per curiam affirmed this order, 103 So.2d 884.
The appellants then filed their answer which denied all the essential allegations of the complaint and asserted as a defense that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit on the ground that the Federal Government had pre-empted the field of labor activity in cases in which interstate commerce is involved or affected. It was the appellants' contention that the National Labor Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction in the instant case.
It is uncontroverted that none of the striking union men are employees of the appellee and that no labor dispute exists between the appellants, their officers, employees, agents or members and the appellee corporation.
Once the issues were made it became apparent that both parties were in agreement that the prime question was whether or not the appellee's activities affected interstate commerce. Both sides were of the opinion that if the appellee's project did in fact affect interstate commerce the State Court would not have jurisdiction.
On the basis of this agreement the Court permitted the appellants to use the entire time of the July 28th and August 28th hearings to offer evidence in support of their contention that the appellee's project affected interstate commerce. The appellants were further permitted to introduce into evidence five depositions on September 25, 1958. The exhibits offered by the appellants on the subject of the appellee's alleged interstate activities became so voluminous that the Court permitted said exhibits to be audited by a Certified Public Accountant. The exhibits so audited were incorporated into a document entitled, 'Recapitulation of Evidence Introduced Relating to Interstate Commerce Issue', and this document was introduced into evidence and examined by the Court. Based upon the evidence thus before the Court, Judge Anderson in granting the permanent injunction and holding the appellee is entitled to damages found in part:
'1. That the Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of this suit; and
* * *
* * *
On the day he issued his final decree, Judge Anderson also filed a 'Memorandum' in which he expressed his personal views on the wisdom of the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the now famous Guss case. 1 Although we are prone to agree with the learned Judge's condemnation of the 'no-man's land' doctrine as being offensive to 'the time honored philosophy of the law that 'there is no wrong without a remedy'', his memorandum which is not part of the Trial Court's judgment or decree, cannot be properly a part of our consideration of this case. 2
The appellants take the position that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 2.1, subd. a(5)(a), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., which provides that 'appeals from trial court may be taken directly to the Supreme Court * * * from final judgments or decrees passing directly upon the validity of a state statute or a federal statute or treaty, or construing a controlling provision of the Florida or Federal Constitution * * *'. 3
Before answering the appellants' principal argument, we consider it appropriate to dispose of their Assignment of Error in which they assert: 'The Court erred in misconstruing the validity of 29 USC Section 160(a) in respect to lack of jurisdiction of the Court.' This contention is without merit. A careful perusal of the record discloses that the validity of 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(a) was never decided by the Court. Section 160(a) gives the National Labor Relations Board power to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice affecting commerce. The final decree clearly discloses that the chancellor was aware that if the appellee's project involved or affected interstate commerce, the State Courts of Florida would not have jurisdiction. Under the pleadings and evidence before the Circuit Court the validity of 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(a) was not in issue; therefore, said Court could not and did not pass directly upon its validity.
The primary contention of the appellants is that this Court has jurisdiction because the Trial Court erred in misconstruing Article I, Section 8 and Article VI of the United States Constitution. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several States and Article VI contains the so-called Supremacy clause. 4
Before this Court will take jurisdiction of a case on the ground that a final judgment or decree...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Am. Co. v. Green
... ... this was considered to be the value of the common stock of North American that had been issued to ... See International Hod Carriers' Building and Common Laborers' Union ... Page 612 ... Local 478--AFL-CIO v. Heftler Construction Company, ... ...
-
Carol City Utilities, Inc. v. Dade County, 65-636
...by the lower Court, even if erroneously, this Court ought to refer the cause to the District Court 'In International Hod Carriers v. Heftler Const. Co., Fla.1959, 112 So.2d 848, 852, the Supreme Court declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the District Court under Rule 2.1(a)(5)(......
-
International Hod Carriers' Bldg. and Common Laborers' Union Local 478 - AFL-CIO v. Heftler Const. Co.
...Supreme Court but jurisdiction was declined as no constitutional question was involved and the case was transferred to this court, 112 So.2d 848. It will be convenient to refer to the parties as they were in the trial court. It is obvious and uncontroverted that the secondary boycott found ......