McLean Distrib. Co. v. Brewery & Bev. Drivers, 37739

• Decision Date: 23 January 1959
• Docket Number: No. 37739,37739
• Citation: 254 Minn. 204,94 N.W.2d 514
• Parties: McLEAN DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, Inc., Relator, v. BREWERY AND BEVERAGE DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION LOCAL NUMBER 993, Joseph A. Wagner and Wade Russell, Respondents.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 514

94 N.W.2d 514

254 Minn. 204

McLEAN DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, Inc., Relator, v. BREWERY AND BEVERAGE DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION LOCAL NUMBER 993, Joseph A. Wagner and Wade Russell, Respondents.

No. 37739.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 23, 1959.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1959.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where a trial court has jurisdiction over a controversy but declines to exercise such jurisdiction, mandamus is a proper remedy to compel it to take jurisdiction and determine the controversy on the merits if there is no other adequate remedy.

2. The courts of this state are not precluded from exercising jurisdiction over a controversy involving the legality of a strike in contravention of an express no-strike clause in a labor contract, even though the contract involves employment affecting interstate commerce, if the contract contains no provision for reopening or renegotiation during the express term thereof.

Mandt Torrison, James C. O'Neill, Bundlie, Kelley & Maun, St. Paul, for relator.

Robins, Davis & Lyons, Solly Robins, Erwin A. Peterson, Willard L. Converse, Eugene T. Williamson, St. Paul, for respondents.

KNUTSON, Justice.

This is a petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the District Court of Ramsey County to take and exercise jurisdiction in an action brought to obtain injunctive relief from an alleged unauthorized and illegal strike.

The principal facts are not seriously in dispute. Relator, McLean Distributing Company, Inc., referred to hereinafter as McLean, has been engaged for a number of years in the business of selling and distributing various brands of beer and soft drinks in and near the city of St. Paul. These brands have varied from time to time. McLean is a wholesaler in that it buys the products of various manufacturers and resells them at a marked-up price. Deliveries of such products are made by truck. Respondent Brewery and Beverage Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local No. 993, referred to hereinafter as the respondent union, is the duly certified bargaining agent for McLean's employees.

On or about July 1, 1957, McLean and respondent union negotiated and executed a contract covering the working relations between McLean and its employees, which by its terms expires on June 30, 1959. While this contract was executed separately by McLean, it is identical with that executed with other distributors of like products in the same general area. The pertinent portions of this contract are:

'Section 1. Recognition as Bargaining Agent. The Employer recognizes the Union as the sole collective bargaining agent for the employees in the classifications covered by this agreement as certified by the National Labor Relations Board.

'Section 2. Union Shop. The Employer shall have the right to choose any person as a new employee. All employees now within the unit who have been employed for thirty (30) days or more, and all other employees after thirty (30) days of employment, shall become members of the Union and shall thereafter maintain membership in good standing as defined by the National Labor Relations Act as a condition of continued employment.

'Section 3. Union Assistance in Securing New Employees. The Union agrees to prepare and maintain a list of men available for hire who possess the necessary qualifications to employment, and shall furnish the same and such additional information relative thereto as it has available if any employer requests it.

'Section 5. Contract Provisions Controlling. No agreement between Employers and employees conflicting with the terms and provisions hereof shall be valid and enforceable.

'Both the Employer and the Union will be bound by the terms hereof during the period set forth herein regardless of any claimed collateral agreements or understandings unless such amendments or modifications are made a part hereof by express written stipulation and in the event any question arises of adherence to the provisions of this agreement, no contract, or understanding between the Employers and the employees shall prevail as against the provisions of this agreement.

'No employee covered by this agreement shall have the right to vary the terms or provisions hereof without the express written consent of the Union and the Employer.

'Article VI.

'Grievance and Arbitration

'Any controversy arising over the interpretation of or adherence to the terms and provisions of this agreement shall be settled promptly by negotiations between the Employer and the employee or a Union representative, provided if negotiations are with an employee, the bargaining representative of the Union has been given an opportunity to be present. If no adjustment satisfactory to both parties can be reached in this way, then the matter shall be settled by a Board of Arbitrators upon written demand of either party upon the other within ten (10) days of the occurrence of the dispute.

'(Thereafter follow specifications as to the manner in which the arbitration shall be conducted.)

'There shall be no strike or lockout during the period herein provided for arbitration.

'Article XII.

'Effective and Termination Dates

'This Agreement shall take effect as of July 1, 1957 and shall continue in effect until June 30, 1959, inclusive. This Agreement may be reopened as of July 1, 1959 for changes or modifications herein, or termination hereof, by either party giving sixty (60) days advance written notice to the other of its intent to do so. If neither party reopens this contract as herein provided, it shall automatically be extended from year to year thereafter with like provisions for reopening as of the annual date of July 1.' (Italics supplied.)

Among other things, the contract provides for seniority rights of employees.

Prior to November 7, 1958, the Hamm Brewing Company, referred to hereinafter as Hamm's, distributed its own products in the city of St. Paul by trucks owned by it and driven by its employees. Respondent union was the certified bargaining agent for Hamm's employees, as it was for those of McLean. On or about November 7, 1958, Hamm's decided to discontinue distribution of its own products. It then entered into an agreement with McLean under which McLean became the distributor of Hamm's beer in the city of St. Paul. Some or all of the trucks formerly used by Hamm's were sold to a corporation affiliated with McLean. Hamm's terminated the employment of some 64 persons formerly engaged in the sale and distribution of its beer. McLean commenced distribution of Hamm's beer on November 10, 1958. Prior to doing so, it notified the former employees of Hamm's who had been discharged that they could, if they desired, apply for work with McLean. Some of them did so, and, as a result thereof, McLean employed 48 of Hamm's former employees. They began working for McLean, doing the same work as the original McLean employees. The contract which the union had with Hamm's was more favorable to the employees, in some respects, than the contract which it had with McLean. This may have been due to the fact that Hamm's employees were engaged both as salesmen and distributors whereas McLean conducted the selling operation independently from the distribution. After McLean had hired some of Hamm's former employees, the union contended that McLean was under an obligation to bargain with it separately with respect to working conditions of Hamm's former employees. McLean claimed that it had a contract covering all its employees which was not subject to renegotiation or reopening during its term.

On or about December 1, 1958, respondent union called a meeting of the former Hamm's employees. The original McLean employees were excluded from such meeting. Those attending that meeting voted in favor of going on a strike. Thereafter, McLean's place of business was picketed with signs reading 'McLean-Hamms Distr. Unfair to Brewery and Beverage Drivers Local 993.' McLean's employees were told by the pickets that they could deliver all beer except Hamm's. Drivers who took out mixed loads of beer, including Hamm's beer, were threatened with reprisals such as being blackballed from the union and other injury. None of the former Hamm's employees who had been hired by McLean remained at work. McLean informed them by telegram that they must return to work or they would be replaced. When none of them returned to work, each was notified that he had been discharged. It is claimed that as a result of the picketing McLean has lost all sources of beer for distribution except Hamm's.

On December 2, 1958, McLean commenced an action for injunctive relief, alleging unfair labor practices under M.S.A. §§ 179.06 and 179.11(1, 2, 4, 7, 8). ¹ The trial court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the picketing until the matter could be heard. In order to obviate the necessity of introducing evidence on that phase of the case, the parties entered into a stipulation that for the purpose of this case it would be admitted that McLean was engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. A hearing was held, and, after making some findings of fact, the trial court determined that the state court lacked jurisdiction over the controversy and denied any relief. The restraining order theretofore issued was discharged. We then issued a show-cause order on an application for a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to accept jurisdiction and to proceed to try and determine the case on its merits and to grant such relief as relator was entitled to.

The principal question now before us is whether, under the facts of this case, the courts of this state may exercise jurisdiction over the controversy involved and grant injunctive relief.

A preliminary question arises as to whether mandamus is available to compel the trial court to accept jurisdiction of the controversy. Respondent union concedes that this court may, by...