Local Union No. 1101, Laborers Intern. Union of North America, AFL-CIO v. Davis

• Decision Date: 17 September 1968
• Docket Number: No. K--407,AFL-CIO,K--407
• Citation: 213 So.2d 890
• Parties: LOCAL UNION NO. 1101, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,, and Herbert Hendry, Jr., its business agent, Appellants, v. Bruce G. DAVIS and Marian Davis, his wife, William K. Cash and Patricia A. Cash, his wife, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 890

213 So.2d 890

LOCAL UNION NO. 1101, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, and Herbert Hendry, Jr., its business agent, Appellants, v. Bruce G. DAVIS and Marian Davis, his wife, William K. Cash and Patricia A. Cash, his wife, Appellees.

No. K--407.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 17, 1968.

Hardee, Ott, Hamilton & Stephens, Tampa, for appellants.

Moore, Henderson, Buchanan & Moore, Tallahassee, for appellees.

WIGGINTON, Chief Judge.

Defendant labor union seeks interlocutory review of a temporary injunction rendered by the Circuit Court of Leon County restraining it from peacefully picketing the premises owned by appellees and on which they are in the process of constructing a student residence hall near the campus of Florida State University.

Appellees are the owners of the premises located near Florida State University campus on which they are having constructed by their general contractor, Albritton-Williams, Inc., a residence hall or dormitory to be occupied by and operated for the benefit of students enrolled at the University. When completed, the dormitory will accommodate 524 students and more than 150 leases have already been executed by the owners with students entering the fall quarter commencing September 15, 1968. If construction continues as scheduled, the construction will be completed and the dormitory ready for occupancy on September 15, 1968.

Appellees' general contractor has filed two complaints with the National Labor Relations Board charging appellant local labor union with unfair labor practices in connection with the contractor's construction of the dormitory involved in this case, and appellant labor union has filed with the National Labor Relations Board a complaint charging the general contractor with unfair labor practices in connection with the performance of its contract on the dormitory here in question. The Board has accepted jurisdiction of both complaints and is now in the process of investigating them. Appellee owners are not engaged in interstate commerce and the dormitory being constructed by them, when completed, will be a facility over which the National Labor Relations Board would not assert or claim jurisdiction.

The appellant labor union commenced picketing the construction site of the dormitory as a result of which members of other labor unions refused to cross the picket line, causing work on the project to cease for all practical purposes. There is a shortage of housing for students entering Florida State University for the fall quarter and unless enjoined the labor union will continue to picket the premises thereby preventing completion of the construction of the dormitory and precluding appellees from honoring their rental contracts with students entering the University, thereby causing irreparable harm and damage to both appellees and the students affected.

At the hearing on appellees' motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order, appellants orally moved the trial court to deny the motion and dismiss the complaint on the ground that the exclusive jurisdiction to settle the controversy between the labor union and the general contractor is vested in the National Labor Relations Board which has assumed jurisdiction of the charges made by each against the other, and that the trial court is without jurisdiction either to settle the controversy or to enjoin the peaceful picketing engaged in by the appellant labor union. Appellants' oral motions were denied and the injunction issued.

The primary thrust of appellants' position is that the exclusive jurisdiction for settling the controversy existing between appellants and appellees' general contractor, Albritton-Williams, Inc., and for seeking any injunctions which may be warranted in the premises, is vested in the National Labor Relations Board of the United States under the Labor Management Relations Act of Congress ¹ and that the Circuit Court of Leon County lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cause.

It is important to note at the outset that appellees do not contend nor have they asserted that appellants' conduct constitutes mass picketing or picketing creating a breach of the peace, or that they have engaged in acts of violence or threats of violence in their picketing of the construction site on which the student residence hall is being constructed. It is conceded that appellants' picketing of the construction site is peaceful and not subject to criticism on the grounds of violence or breach of the peace.

In the foregoing recital of the facts it appears evident that appellant labor union and appellees' general contractor have each charged the other with unfair labor practices falling squarely within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, which Board has accepted jurisdiction of their complaints and is now in the process of investigating them. Since no question exists as to the jurisdiction of the Board to settle the controversy existing between appellant union and appellees' general contractor, that jurisdiction has become exclusive and the courts of this state are without jurisdiction under the facts of this case to enter the controversy or attempt to settle any phase of the dispute between the contending parties.

In the case of Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers International Union v. Babcock Co. ² the Third District Court of Appeal, speaking through Judge Horton, said:

'* * * Suffice it to say that the Supreme Court of the United States has generally construed the Labor Management Relations Act as pre-empting the field in labor matters where the conduct complained of affects interstate commerce and, though the state power has not been exclusively absorbed, the states have been left a very narrow field of operation. Basically, as outlined in United Auto, Aircraft & Agr. Implement Workers of America v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 351 U.S. 266, 76 S.Ct. 794, 100 L.Ed. 1162, the state's power in labor relations matters is confined to a prevention of mass picketing, acts of violence and threats of violence. See Allen-Bradley Local, etc. v. Wisconsin (Employment Relations) Board, 315 U.S. 740, 62 S.Ct. 820, 86 L.Ed. 1154; United Construction Workers, etc. v. Labernum (Laburnum Const.) Corp., 347 U.S. 656, 74 S.Ct. 833, 98 L.Ed. 1025; Algoma Plywood & Veneer Co. v. Wisconsin (Employment Relations) Board, 336 U.S. 301, 69 S.Ct. 584, 93 L.Ed. 691. It would appear now to be an established rule that a state court may not enjoin peaceful picketing where it is arguable that the activities complained of are within the purview of the Labor Management Relations Act. San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775.'

In delineating the general principles which have evolved with respect to the jurisdiction of state courts to employ the injunctive process in the settlement of labor management disputes, Justice Thornal, speaking for the Supreme Court of Florida in Scherer & Sons, Inc. v....