Local Union No. 324, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, A. F. L. v. Upshur-Rural Elec. Co-op. Corp.
Decision Date | 10 September 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 6631,UPSHUR-RURAL,6631 |
Citation | 261 S.W.2d 484 |
Parties | LOCAL UNION NO. 324, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A.F.L. et al. v.ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORP. et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Mullinax & Wells, L. N. D. Wells, Dallas, for appellants.
Fulton, Hancock & McClain, Edwin M. Fulton and Hollie L. McClain, Gilmer, Powell, Wirtz & Rauhut, John B. Connally and William A. Brown, Austin, for appellees.
This appeal is by Riley Irvin and Hugh Campbell from an order refusing their petition for a temporary mandatory injunction against the appellees, Upshur- Rural Electric Cooperative, a corporation hereafter referred to as the Cooperative, and J. L. Johns, its manager. The petition, commendably clear and concise, alleged that appellants, employees of the Cooperative, were members of Local No. 324, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., a 'Labor Union', hereafter referred to as the Union, within the meaning of the Act of the 50th Legislature, 1947, Ch. 74, Sec. 4, p. 107, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 5207a; that appellants were discharged and denied employment by the appellees because of their membership in said Union, contrary to the provisions of said Act, and particularly of Sec. 2 thereof; that they have suffered, and will continue to suffer irreparable damages for which they have no adequate legal remedy. The prayer was for a mandatory injunction requiring appellees to reinstate them to their positions of employment during the pendency of the main suit. After a full hearing the district court denied the injunction prayed for.
The applicable portions of the Act referred to, Acts 50th Leg., Ch. 74, p. 107, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 5207a, read:
* * *'
It is not necessary to set out Section 4 of the Act, which defines a 'labor union', as we hold, and the fact is not controverted, that the Union here involved is a 'labor union' within the meaning of the Act.
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of this Act. Construction and General Labor Union, Local No. 688 v. Stephenson, 148 Tex. 434, 225 S.W.2d 958. The effect of it is to make the 'closed shop' in Texas illegal and against public policy. Texas State Federation of Labor v. Brown & Root, Tex.Civ.App., 246 S.W.2d 938, writ refused, n. r. e.; Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 175 v. Walker, Tex.Civ.App., 236 S.W.2d 683, writ refused.
Since neither penalties nor remedial procedure is provided in the Act, the injunctive power of the courts may protect against invasion of such rights as are granted thereby. Brotherhood of Ry. and S. S. Clerks, etc., v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., D.C., 24 F.5d 426; Id., 5 Cir, 25 F.2d 873, 876, affirmed sub nom. Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Ry. and S. S. Clerks, 5 Cir., 33 F.2d 13, 281 U.S. 548, 50 S.Ct. 427, 74 L.Ed. 1034. The right, of course, is abstract, and the applicant must show himself entitled to equitable relief by bringing himself within the statutory requirements, art. 4642 et seq., R.S. of Texas, as they have been construed by the courts.
The burden of proof, as in all such cases, is upon the applicant to show himself entitled to the relief prayed for, 24 Tex.Jur., p. 180, Sec. 134; and the appellate court will indulge the usual presumptions in favor of the judgment appealed from. 24 Tex.Jur., p. 310, Sec. 251.
We will first dispose of the appeal of Riley Irvin. This appellant had been in the employ of the Cooperative for about eleven years, in construction and maintenance of electric transmission lines and in the general electric work of the Cooperative. He had been advanced from lineman to foreman of a crew, and about July 1, 1950, he was promoted to the position of construction superintendent or supervisor. As such he was in charge of and responsible for all construction and maintenance. All crews and their foremen were under his direction and control. Next to the manager, and later to the assistant manager, he was the highest ranking employee of the Cooperative.
About June 3, 1950, appellee J. L. Johns became manager of the Cooperative. Previous to his selection he had been construction superintendent, and after becoming manager he promoted Irvin to the position. Johns knew at that time that Irvin was a member of the Union, Irvin having had such membership for about ten years. Irvin was discharged on July 24, 1951. Appellants say he was discharged for 'union membership', contrary to the Act referred to. The case was tried to the court. No finding nor conclusions were filed, nor does the judgment as to Irvin and Campbell state the grounds of the decision. However the trial court filed, and there is brought up in the transcript, a 'Memorandum of Court's Decision.' filed on the date of the judgment entry. This instrument states: 'This memorandum is not to be taken as findings of fact or conclusions of law as contemplated by the Rules of Civil Procedure, and is intended only that interested persons may understand the reasoning of the court in reaching the judgment entered herein.'
In discussing the evidence the Court's Memorandum says:
Without regard to the Memorandum, the trial court's judgment involves findings above enumerated. We have carefully reviewed the facts and find they support such inferences. On the points mentioned by the trial court's Memorandum, the facts are not in material dispute. The trial court concluded that such facts constituted 'union activities' of such nature...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Messner v. Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers and Cosmetologists, Intern. Union of America, Local 256
...77 S.Ct. 1056, 1 L.Ed.2d 1133. Texas: Laws 1947, ch. 74 (Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., art. 5207a); Local Union No. 324 etc. v. Upshur-Rural E. C. Corp. (1953), Tex.Civ.App. (261 S.W.2d 484, 485(3)). Utah: Code Ann., §§ 34-16-1 through 34-16-18 (Laws 1955, ch. Virginia: Acts of Assembly, 1947, ch. ......
-
Vietnamese Fishermen's Ass'n v. KNIGHTS, ETC.
...or organization, or to parade in public with arms in any part of the State...." 24 See I.B.E.W. Local 324 v. Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative Corp., 261 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex.Civ.App.1953), wherein the Court of Civil Appeals held that the injunctive power of the courts may protect against a......
-
Vogts v. Guerrette
...House-holder v. Kansas City, 83 Mo. 488, 495, and cases cited; see also Local Union No. 324, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 261 S.W.2d 484; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, 281 U.S. ......
-
Independent Stave Co., Inc. v. Higdon
...plaintiffs had cited the case of Local Union No. 324, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A.F.L. v. Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative Corp., 261 S.W.2d 484 (Tex.Civ.App.1953), and the fact that it was based on a Texas statute, Tex. (civil) Code Ann. tit. 83, § 5207a(2) which pr......