International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 8 v. Harvey Aluminum (Inc.)

• Decision Date: 08 February 1961
• Citation: 226 Or. 94,359 P.2d 112
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL NO. 8, by Carl Anderson, its representative, Appellant, v. HARVEY ALUMINUM (INCORPORATED), General Ore and Chemical Corp., and General Ore, Inc., Respondents.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Page 112

359 P.2d 112

226 Or. 94

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL NO. 8, by Carl Anderson, its representative, Appellant, v. HARVEY ALUMINUM (INCORPORATED), General Ore and Chemical Corp., and General Ore, Inc., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Oregon, Department 1.

Argued and Submitted Sept. 8, 1960.

Decided Feb. 8, 1961.

Philip A. Levin, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Pozzi & Wilson, Portland.

Samuel F. Speerstra, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Rhoten, Rhoten & Speerstra, Salem.

Before McALLISTER, C. J., and ROSSMAN, PERRY, GOODWIN and KING, JJ.

McALLISTER, Chief Justice.

This is a suit brought by plaintiff, the secretary of International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 8, on behalf of himself and all other members of the union, for the purpose of enforcing an alleged agreement between the union and defendants requiring them to utilize the union hiring hall for the hiring of workmen engaged in unloading vessels.

Defendants demurred to the amended complaint upon the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction; that there was a defect of parties-plaintiff; and that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of suit.

The trial court sustained the demurrer on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction. Plaintiff declined to plead further and a decree of dismissal was entered. Plaintiff appeals.

The following questions are presented by this appeal: (1) Does the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq., vest exclusive jurisdiction of this suit in the federal courts? (2) Do the facts alleged entitle plaintiff to maintain a class or representative suit? and (3) Is the hiring hall agreement as alleged by plaintiff illegal?

Defendants' contention that the Labor Management Relations Act has deprived the state courts of jurisdiction to enforce collective bargaining agreements has been settled by our decision in Springer v. Powder Power Tool Corp., 220 Or. 102, 348 P.2d 1112, in which we held that the state and federal jurisdiction is concurrent. In addition to the cases cited in support of our holding in the Springer case, the following may be added: Courtney v. Charles Dowd Box Co., Mass., 169 N.E.2d 885; Miller v. Kansas City Power & Light Company, Mo.App., 332 S.W.2d 18; Swift & Co. v. United Packinghouse Workers, D.C.Colo.1959, 177 F.Supp. 511; Ingraham Co. v. Local 260, Inter. U. of E., R. & M. Wkrs., D.C.Conn.1959, 171 F.Supp. 103; Connecticut Company v. Division 425, etc., 147 Conn. 608, 164 A.2d 413, and Clark v. Hein-Werner Corp., 8 Wis.2d 264, 99 N.W.2d 132, 100 N.W.2d 317.

By demurring to the complaint on the ground of defect of parties-plaintiff, the defendants challenge plaintiff's right to maintain a class suit. A class suit is authorized by ORS 13.170 when 'the question is one of a common or general interest of many persons, or when the parties are very numerous, and it may be impractical to bring them all before the court.' Plaintiff alleges that this suit is brought 'on behalf of himself and as a representative of all other members of said organization, a group so numerous as to make it impractical to bring all of them before this Court and that this suit by the plaintiff will fairly insure the adequate representation of all.' It is apparent from this and other allegations of the complaint that the parties are numerous and that it would be impracticable to bring them all before the court. There is no defect of parties-plaintiff and the demurrer can not be sustained on that ground. See Trustees of Methodist Episcopal Church at Jefferson v. Adams, 4 Or. 76, 88; Harris ex rel. Carpenters Union, etc. v. Backman, 160 Or. 520, 86 P.2d 456; Quinn v. Marvin, 168 Or. 52, 120 P.2d 227; Duke v. Franklin, 177 Or. 297, 162 P.2d 141; and Mursener v. Forte et al., 186 Or. 253, 205 P.2d 568. The record discloses no conflict of interest among the class represented by plaintiff as in Longsford et al. v. Burton et al., 200 Or. 497, 267 P.2d 208.

Defendants further contend that the contract which plaintiff seeks to enforce is illegal and for that reason the complaint does not state a cause of suit. An examination of the authorities discloses that the federal substantive law regarding hiring hall contracts is in a state of flux. The National Labor Relations Board has adopted the position that such contracts are unlawful unless they contain certain explicit safeguards against discrimination. Mountain Pacific Chapter, 119 N.L.R.B. 883; Houston Maritime Association, Inc., 121 N.L.R.B. 389; Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., 122 N.L.R.B. 1147; and E & B Brewing Company, Inc., 122 N.L.R.B. 354. The following cases support the view of the National Labor Relations Board: N.L.R.B. v. Carpenters Local 176, 1 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 582 and Local 357, International Brotherhood, etc. v. N.L.R.B., 1960, 107 U.S. App.D.C., 188, 275 F.2d 646. Other courts have held to the contrary. See N.L.R.B. v. E & B Brewing Co., 6 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 594; Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. N.L.R.B., 9 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 63; and N.L.R.B. v. Mountain Pacific Chapter, 9 Cir., 1959, 270 F.2d 425. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in three of these cases and presumably will resolve this question.

However, there is nothing in plaintiff's complaint to suggest that the...