Local Union 26, National Brothers of Operative Potters v. City of Kokomo

• Decision Date: 15 January 1937
• Docket Number: 26623.
• Citation: 5 N.E.2d 624,211 Ind. 72
• Parties: LOCAL UNION NO. 26, NATIONAL BROTHERS OF OPERATIVE POTTERS, et al. v. CITY OF KOKOMO et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

5 N.E.2d 624

211 Ind. 72

LOCAL UNION NO. 26, NATIONAL BROTHERS OF OPERATIVE POTTERS, et al. v. CITY OF KOKOMO et al.

No. 26623.

Supreme Court of Indiana

January 15, 1937

Appeal from Howard Circuit Court; J. C. Herron Judge.

William H. Faust, Irene Faust, and Julius V. Medias, all of Indianapolis, for appellants.

Broo & Holt and Jessup & Strode, all of Kokomo, for appellees.

TREMAIN Chief Justice.

This is an action by the appellants, plaintiffs below, a labor organization, against the city of Kokomo, its officers, the Attorney General, and the Kokomo Sanitary Pottery Corporation, located within the city of Kokomo, and an employer of labor subject to the provisions of chapter 12 of the Acts of the General Assembly, of 1933 being sections 40-501 to 40-514, inclusive, of Burns' Ind.St.1933, sections 10155 to 10168, Baldwin's Ind.St.1934, to declare unconstitutional and void a certain city ordinance adopted by the city of Kokomo on the 2d day of May, 1935, known as an anti-picketing ordinance, and alleged to conflict with said statute.

It is alleged that on and prior to February 9, 1934, members of appellant, Local Union No. 26, were employees of said Kokomo Sanitary Pottery Corporation, at which time a controversy arose between said pottery corporation and its employees relative to the working hours, wages, and sanitary conditions in and about the factory, and as to who should represent the employees in bargaining collectively with said corporation in regard to said matters; that said pottery corporation refused to negotiate with a committee representing the appellants refused to bargain collectively with Local Union No. 26, National Brotherhood of Operative Potters, as the representative of the employees of said corporation, refused to make a collective bargaining agreement and made coercive demands upon the employees, condemned said Local Union No. 26 by threats, coercion, and interference with its self-organizaton, coerced some employees into signing individual contracts, discharged 26, and demanded that the employees withdraw from membership in Local Union No. 26.

As a result of said foregoing acts, Local Union No. 26 called a strike on the 9th day of February, 1935. Eighty per cent. of said employees of said pottery corporation were members of said union and voted to call said strike; that it should continue until the pottery corporation enter into collective bargaining discussions and negotiations with the representative of said employees, and until it ceased to require said employees to sign 'yellow dog contracts'; that it comply with chapter 12 of the Acts of 1933; that said plaintiffs should give publicity to the existence of said strike and the facts involved in said labor dispute by advertising, speaking, and patrolling.

They expressly denied that in so doing they used any fraud or violence; that they assembled peaceably to act in the promotion of their interests in said labor dispute and advised, urged, or otherwise caused, without fraud or violence, others to refrain from working for said pottery corporation, and did, without fraud or violence and without coercion and intimidation, peaceably picket in and about the premises; that said labor dispute was in existence at the time of filing this action, and had been in existence at all times since February 9, 1935.

Said chapter 12 of the Acts of 1933 defines and limits the jurisdiction of courts in the issuance of restraining orders and injunctions growing out of labor disputes, and declares the public policy of the state in relation thereto. The act became effective on May 22, 1933. Section 2 of the act, being section 40-502, Burns' Ind.St.1933, section 10156, Baldwin's Ind.St.1934, declares the policy of the state to be: 'Whereas, under prevailing economic conditions, developed with the aid of governmental authority for owners of property to organize in the corporate and other forms of ownership associations, the individual unorganized worker is commonly helpless to exercise actual liberty of contract and to protect his freedom of labor, and thereby to obtain acceptable terms and conditions of employment, wherefore, though he should be free to decline to associate with his fellows, it is necessary that he have full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of his own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of his employment, and that he shall be free from interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; therefore, the following definition of, and limitations upon, the jurisdiction and authority of the courts of the state of Indiana are hereby enacted.'

In connection with the provisions concerning the issuance of restraining orders and temporary and permanent injunctions, it is declared that no court of the state shall have jurisdiction to issue the same against those engaged in lawful means of aiding any person participating or interested in any labor dispute, or against persons for 'giving publicity to the existence of, or the facts involved in, any labor dispute, whether by advertising, speaking, patroling, or by any other method not involving fraud or violence.'

It is alleged that on the 2d day of May, 1935, during the progress of said labor dispute, the city of Kokomo adopted an ordinance intended to prevent all picketing within the corporate limits of said city, and to prohibit the members of said Local Union No. 26, the appellants herein, from picketing the premises of said Kokomo Sanitary Pottery Corporation. It was made a misdemeanor for any person to watch, beset, or picket the premises of another, where any person is employed, or any approach thereto for the purpose of inducing such employee by compulsion, threats, coercion, intimidation, or by any act of violence, or by putting such employee in fear, to quit his or her employment or to refrain from seeking or freely entering into employment, and providing that upon conviction such person be fined not less than $10, nor more than $300, to which may be added imprisonment of not more than 60 days. Another section made it a misdemeanor for any person to induce others not to patronize or transact business with the employer of labor. Another section made it a misdemeanor for one or more persons to assemble, congregate, or meet together in the vicinity of the premises where persons were employed for the purpose of inducing them by compulsion, threats, coercion, etc., to desist from engaging in such employment. Another section made it a misdemeanor for persons to meet together and congregate in the vicinity of the premises of another for the purpose of inducing others to refrain from entering such premises for the purpose of transacting business. Another section made it a misdemeanor for those assembled to utter to, and within the hearing of the picketed premises, any derogatory, opprobrious, or indecent epithets.

The appellants alleged that a controversy had arisen between and among said parties as to the proper and legal construction force, and effect of the terms and provisions of chapter 12 of the Acts of 1933, and as to the validity, force, and effect of said ordinance of the city of Kokomo; that the plaintiffs contend that said act authorizes the right to strike, and as a means of making such strike effective, to picket the premises of the defendant pottery corporation, providing no fraud or violence is used; that the common council of the city of Kokomo is without power and authority to enact and enforce said ordinance since the adoption of chapter 12 of the Acts of 1933; that therefore the city ordinance is wholly without effect; that all the provisions thereof are fully covered by said act of 1933; that said ordinance is in direct conflict with said statute and violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, and is in conflict with the ninth, twenty-third, and thirty-first sections of the Bill of Rights of the State Constitution.

It is further alleged in the complaint that the appellees claim, regardless of chapter 12 of the Acts of 1933, the city of Kokomo possessed the authority under the police power of the state to declare all picketing to be unlawful within the corporate limits of the city, and that said ordinance is constitutional and valid. Appellants allege that on account of the adverse positions of the parties thereto, the contention as to whether the act of the Legislature or the city ordinance is controlling, the attempted enforcement by the city of said ordinance, and subjection of the participants in said strike to arrest, fine and imprisonment, it is necessary that the court shall declare the status, rights, powers, and duties of the respective parties.

The prayer is that the court declare that the appellants and others similarly situated be decreed to have the right and privilege of ceasing or refusing to perform work, the right to become members of labor organizations and of participating therein, to participate in a strike, to give publicity to the existence of labor trouble by urging, speaking, patrolling etc., not involving fraud or violence, and the right to peaceably assemble and organize and do any and all other acts recognized by chapter 12 of the Acts of 1933; that the court adjudge said city ordinance to be invalid and of no force and effect; that the appellees, their representative, agents, and employees, be enjoined from enforcing, or attempting to enforce, said city ordinance and from arresting the appellants engaged in the labor dispute and peaceably picketing the premises; and that the...