International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 3 v. Utah Labor Relations Board

• Decision Date: 25 February 1949
• Docket Number: 7114
• Citation: 115 Utah 183,203 P.2d 404
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 3 v. UTAH LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al

203 P.2d 404

115 Utah 183

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 3 v. UTAH LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al

No. 7114

Supreme Court of Utah

February 25, 1949

Proceeding By International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No 3 Against The Utah Labor Relations Board And Another, For Review of An Order Commanding Plaintiff To Cease And Desist From Unfair Labor Practices The Industrial Relations Council of Utah And Another Filed Briefs As Amici Curiae

Order set aside.

F Henri Henriod, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.

Grover A. Giles, Atty. Gen., and Allan Mecham, of Salt Lake City, for defendants.

Callister Callister & Lewis and Clarence M. Beck, all of Salt Lake City, amici curiae.

Wolfe Justice. Pratt, C.J., and Wade, Latimer, and McDonough, JJ., concur.

OPINION

Wolfe, Justice.

Review of an order of the Utah Labor Relations Board commanding plaintiff union to cease and desist from certain acts designated as unfair labor practices by Section 49-1-16(2), U. C. A. 1943, as amended, Laws 1947, c. 66. In this opinion we shall refer to plaintiff, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 3, as the union; to defendant, Utah Labor Relations Board, as the board; and to defendant, Palfreyman Construction Co., as the company. In determining this case we have been assisted not only by the briefs of counsel for the parties, but also by briefs filed by counsel for the Industrial Relations Council and counsel for the Utah State Federation of Labor and Salt Lake Federation of Labor as amici curiae.

The union is a "labor organization" within the meaning of Section 49-1-10(5), U. C. A. 1943, and the company is a Utah corporation.

From July 1, 1946, to March 26, 1947, the union had a contract with the company providing for wages, hours, and working conditions. The contract provided that its terms should continue in effect until June 26, 1947,for any work not completed on the termination date. On March 26, 1947, the company was engaged in constructing a road near Henefer, Utah, known as the "Pioneer Memorial Trail." Nine members of the union employed by the company were working on this project. The company also employed many laborers who were not members of the union, nor of any labor union. The work not being completed on March 26, 1947, the contract was, by its own terms, to continue in force to June 26, 1947.

No new contract was negotiated, and as a result of this, a work stoppage occurred on July 8, 1947, on the company's operations on the highway project. However, full operations were resumed by July 11th.

On July 10, 1947, the company filed with the board a charge, setting forth that the union had blockaded the road; that union officials had threatened to coerce and blacklist employees of the company; that the company employed 40 men on this particular job, only nine of whom were members of the union; that there had been no certification by the union of its members on the job; that the company was hesitant to sign a union shop agreement until the union could show representation of a majority of the company's employees; that the company was paying the union wage scale and complying with all working rules of the union, but refused to sign a contract for fear of being guilty of conspiracy to force non-union men to join the union; and that the union was guilty of violating Section 49-1-16(2) (a, b, c), U. C. A. 1943, as amended, Laws 1947, c. 66, and therefore was guilty of unfair labor practices.

Because frequent reference will be made to Section 49-1-16(2) in this opinion, we set out, at this juncture, the relevant portions of that statute, which provides as follows:

"(2) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employee individually or in concert with others:

"(a) To coerce or intimidate an employee in the enjoyment of his legal rights, including those guaranteed in Section 49-1-15, * * *

"(b) To coerce, intimidate or induce any employer to interfere with any of his employees in the enjoyment of their legal rights, including those guaranteed in Section 49-1-15, or to engage in any practice with regard to his employees which would constitute an unfair labor practice if undertaken by him on his own initiative.

"(c) To cooperate in engaging in, promoting, or inducing picketing (not constituting an exercise of constitutionally guaranteed free speech), boycotting or any other overt concomitant of a strike unless a majority in a collective bargaining unit of the employees of an employer against whom such acts are primarily directed have voted by secret ballot to call a strike.

"(d) To hinder or prevent, by mass picketing, threats, intimidation, force, or coercion of any kind the pursuit of any lawful work or employment, or to obstruct or interfere with entrance to or egress from any place of employment, or to obstruct or interfere with free and uninterrupted use of public roads, streets, highways, railways, airports, or other ways of travel or conveyance. * * *"

On July 11th, a representative of the board made a preliminary investigation in consequence of which the board issued a complaint naming the company as complainant and the union as respondent. The material portions of the complaint are as follows:

"3. That said union, through its agents, C. L. Casebolt and others whose names are unknown to the board, did blockade a public roadway and stop conveyances transporting employees of Complainant engaged in road construction to their place of work, at, or about 5:00 A. M., July 8, 1947, thereby engaging in mass picketing, intimidation and coercion of employees in their pursuit of lawful employment, contrary to and in violation of Title 49-1-16, Subsection (2) (d). [Sic]

4. That Respondent made certain threats of punishment and threats of violence upon workmen for following their course of employment contrary to Respondent's wishes, whom it does not represent lawfully for the purposes of collective bargaining, and did intimidate said workmen near Henefer, Utah, on or about July 8, 1947, and by such conduct did interfere with the legal rights of said workmen and guaranteed under Title 49-1-15 and 49-1-16(2) (a). [Sic]

"5. That the union did not represent a majority of the company's employees and had no legal right to engage in a strike, or to call the company's employees off the job, in violation of Section 49-1-16(2) (c).

"6. That the union on July 8, 1947, attempted to obtain a contract from the company 'by force, coercion and intimidation,' expressed in work stoppages called and promoted by Respondent; all contrary to and in violation of Title 49-1-16(2) (b). [Sic]"

On July 22nd, the union filed its answer, denying all of the allegations of the complaint above set forth, and affirmatively alleging that if there was any blockade of the road it was caused by Jackson, an officer of the company; that there was no picketing, intimidation or coercion; that the union had advised members of the refusal of the company to sign a contract, and notified them to stop work; that there was no intimidation of members or non-members of the union; that the union represented a majority of the employees under the classification for which the union was representative, and that the company recognized the union as bargaining agent for its employees; that the members of the union authorized it to negotiate a new contract with the company; that the company refused to negotiate with the union, and was thereby guilty of an unfair labor practice; and that any words spoken by union representatives were in the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

Hearing of the matter commenced on July 28, 1947. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the company requested that the complaint be amended to conform to the proof. Thereafter an amended complaint was filed by the board, but no copy or notice thereof was served upon counsel for the union, and no opportunity was given to answer to the amended complaint. The substance of the amended complaint was that the business representatives and agents of the union cooperated in engaging and promoting picketing directed primarily against the company and its employees without the majority of the employees in a collective bargaining unit having voted by secret ballot in favor of a strike against the company contrary to Section 49-1-16(2) (c) and that the business agents of the union blockaded a public roadway and stopped and interfered with conveyances transporting employees of the company, viz., Bob Calderwood and others, and intimidated Calderwood and interfered with Calderwood and others in the free and uninterrupted use of a public road near Henefer, Utah, contrary to Section 49-1-16(2) (d), U. C. A. 1943.

The findings of fact made by the board were in substance that the business agents of the union placed an automobile with a picket sign on it on or near the roadway near the company's road construction activities and thereby engaged in picketing against the company and its employees and indicated to the company's employees that a strike against the company was in progress without having first taken a secret ballot contrary to Section 49-1-16(2) (c); that a work stoppage occurred among employees of the company on July 8, 1947 as a direct result of the visit of the business agents of the union, which effectively stopped the company's operations that day involving the labor of approximately 40 employees of company; that the union representatives blockaded a public highway by stopping conveyances transporting employees of the company, namely, Bob Calderwood and others, and did intimidate Calderwood from working July 8, 1947, and interfered with Calderwood and others in their free and uninterrupted use of a public roadway in pursuit of lawful...