Mirabeau Food Store v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butchers' Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 437
| Decision Date | 12 December 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 42550,42550 |
| Citation | 89 So.2d 392,230 La. 921 |
| Parties | MIRABEAU FOOD STORE v. AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHERS' WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 437, Affiliated With The American Federation of Labor. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Anzelmo, Maxwell & Thriffiley, New Orleans, for relator.
Baldwin, Haspel & Molony, Lawrence A. Molony, Conrad Mayer, III, Lawrence J. Molony, New Orleans, for amicus curiae.
Fred J. Cassibry, Ralph N. Jackson, New Orleans, with him on the brief for plaintiff-appellee.
The labor dispute involved in this action, which is the last of three suits affecting the same subject matter (the second was non-suited shortly after its institution), arose because of the dissatisfaction of George P. Baio and Julius C. Ferina with respect to the working hours of their employment as meat cutters with Mirabeau Food Store, a supermarket then owned by Maurice R. Piegts and engaged in an intrastate retail business at 2001 Mirabeau Avenue in the City of New Orleans.
Having been required to labor twelve hours a day for six days a week and additionally five hours on alternate Sundays, each of those employees appealed to the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butchers' Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 437, A. F. of L., of which he was a member, for assistance in obtaining better working conditions. Responding, that organization submitted to Maurice R. Piegts a proposed agreement reciting that the employer would recognize the union as the sole bargaining agent for all of his employees in the meat department (Baio and Ferina were the only ones at the time) in matters respecting wages, hours of labor, and working conditions. However, the employer refused to sign the proposed agreement or to negotiate any bargaining contract with the union, its officers and members. Whereupon, Baio and Ferina, on February 7, 1955, went out on strike and began to peacefully picket the store; and Piegts, later, employed two non-union meat cutters.
To prevent the picketing Piegts instituted suit No. 336,030 on the docket of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. A temporary restraining order initially issued therein, but on the hearing of a rule nisi it was dissolved and a preliminary writ of injunction refused.
From that ruling the plaintiff applied for and was granted writs. And on the original hearing of a rule to show cause in that case a majority of the members of this court concluded that a provision in the contract sought by the union, relative to the recognition of it as the sole bargaining agent for all employees whether union or non-union, was violative of the Louisiana Right to Work Law, being LSA-R.S. 23:881 to 23:888. Accordingly, this court reversed and set aside the district court's decree and remanded the case, directing the reinstatement of the temporary restraining order and the granting of a preliminary writ of injunction (the author of this opinion and also Justice HAWTHORNE disagreed with the conclusion and decree of the majority, they taking the position that no portion of the proposed contract was in violation of the Right to Work Law). See 228 La. 131, 81 So.2d 835.
The respondents timely filed an application for a rehearing in that proceeding, and during its pendency the union withdrew the objectionable demand for recognition as bargaining agent for non-union employees. Later, when the withdrawal was called to the attention of the court a majority of the members concluded and announced, as is evidenced by a Per Curiam, that the application for a rehearing would not be considered since the respondent union's 'action in withdrawing and deleting the objectionable clause from the new contract that it has presented to petitioner constitutes an acquiescence in the original decree of this court.'
This court's original opinion and decree were rendered on May 23, 1955, and its refusal (with a Per Curiam) to consider the application for a rehearing occurred on June 30, 1955. Between those two dates, as above indicated, the union notified the plaintiff, Maurice R. Piegts, of its withdrawal of the demand to be the sole bargaining agent for all employees and requested further negotiations of a contract with the employer, submitting to him at the time a proposed new agreement which stipulated that the union would be the collective bargaining agent only for its members.
When plaintiff denied this request the respondents, on July 1, 1955, filed a motion in the district court in the first proceeding asking modification of the previously issued preliminary injunction so as to permit the union to peacefully picket his place of business for lawful purposes, particularly without seeking the objective held to be illegal by this court. After a hearing on that motion the district court modified the preliminary injunction and authorized picketing not in violation of the Right to Work Law, 'particularly if such peaceful picketing is not in furtherance of a demand that the employer recognize the Union as the sole collective bargaining agent for any employees other than the Union's own members.'
During the argument on such motion counsel for plaintiff had suggested that the court was without authority to modify the injunction. However, the judge rejected the suggestion, announced his conclusion, and orally accepted notice that the plaintiff would apply for writs to this court to test the ruling. The plaintiff neither applied for writs nor did he move for an appeal.
Instead, Maurice R. Piegts, on July 8, 1955, transferred the business to his two sons (Rene Piegts and Alvin Piegts). And five days later they filed the present suit (No. 339,360 on the docket of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans) to enjoin the picketing which had recommenced on the rendition and signing of the modification decree, plaintiffs urging herein that they were strangers to the original labor dispute.
The trial court, after a hearing, refused to issue the preliminary injunction sought. As a consequence plaintiffs applied for and obtained writs from this court.
Relators, to quote from the brief of their counsel, state that the issues in this case are as follows:
'1. Do relators stand in the place of their predecessor, Maurice R. Piegts, and subject themselves to the labor dispute of said Maurice R. Piegts?
'2. Do former employees who went out on strike for an unlawful purpose and who have obtained equivalent employment have the right to picket former employer demanding to be reinstated to the prejudice of non-union employees' right to work as set out in Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:881?
The introduced testimony and exhibits amply support the finding of the trial judge that the 'plaintiff, under both ownerships, the father and sons, has peremptorily and steadfastly refused to bargain with the employees regarding their long hours and working conditions', notwithstanding that the latter all the while have indicated their willingness to settle the differences by negotiations. In fact, the record establishes that not only did the plaintiffs (father and sons) arbitrarily refuse to negotiate and bargain with the union, but that the father also took steps to discipline the employees (made them work longer hours) because of the union affiliation and activity of the latter--steps that are clearly in violation of the spirit, if not of the letter, of LSA-R.S. 23:884, subd. B, which states: 'No person shall be required by an employer to abstain or refrain from membership in any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment.' And it appears that the original strike and picketing were primarily provoked by such practices of Maurice R. Piegts.
True, when the employees went on strike and commenced to picket they coupled with their legal claim (for recognition, collective bargaining, and improved labor conditions) a demand which this court initially declared illegal--that the union be the sole bargaining agent. But such demand was withdrawn, prior to its reconsideration on an application for a rehearing, and before the finality of the first action; and, as a result of the withdrawal and as aforestated, the district court modified the injunction to allow a continuation of the peaceful picketing for the lawful objectives
On the resumption of the lawful picketing (to compel negotiations and better working conditions) Maurice R. Piegts, instead of attempting to have the modification judgment reviewed by this court or to negotiate a contract with the respondents, transferred the business to his sons who brought the present action and contend herein that they are new owners and are in no way connected with the past labor difficulties or former employees of the store-- the latter being utter strangers to them. When this contention was made in the district court the judge commented from the Bench: * * *'
And in his written reasons for judgment the trial judge stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial