Pacific Coast Coal Co. v. District No. 10, United Mine Workers of America

• Decision Date: 06 December 1922
• Docket Number: 16996.
• Citation: 210 P. 953,122 Wash. 423
• Parties: PACIFIC COAST COAL CO. v. DISTRICT NO. 10, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

210 P. 953

122 Wash. 423

PACIFIC COAST COAL CO. v. DISTRICT NO. 10, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al.

No. 16996.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 6, 1922

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Austin E. Griffiths, Judge.

Action for injunction by the Pacific Coast Coal Company against District No. 10, United Mine Workers of America, and others. From an order refusing to continue temporary injunction in force pending trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

Farrell, Kane & Stratton and Guie & Halverstadt all of Seattle, for appellant.

Rummens & Griffin, of Seattle, for respondents.

HOLCOMB J.

Upon a complaint filed in the court below against all of the defendants named therein, a temporary restraining and show cause order was issued out of the court of August 25, 1921 returnable on September 8, 1921, ordering them to show cause on that day why the temporary restraining order should not be continued in force during the pendency of the action. By a later order the show cause order was continued until September 9, 1921, upon which date the matter came on for hearing on the order to show cause. On September 9 the hearing proceeded upon affidavits until September 13 at 3:30 p. m., both parties having read numerous affidavits for and against the continuance in force of an injunction order, and upon the conclusion thereof the trial court made an order refusing to continue the temporary restraining order in force and effect, denying a temporary injunction pending the trial of the cause, and finding that the defendants were and are insolvent.

Thereupon the plaintiff gave oral notice in open court of an appeal from the order of the trial court to this court, and requested the court to fix a supersedeas bond, which the trial court thereupon fixed in the sum of $10,000, and the supersedeas bond was thereafter given by appellant.

The substance of the complaint against the defendants is briefly: That plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the ownership and operation of coal mines in King and Pierce counties, Wash.; that District No. 10, United Mine Workers of America, is a voluntary unincorporated association composed of miners and men employed in the mines; that Newcastle Local No. 2362, United Mine Workers of America, is a voluntary unincorporated association of the state of Washington, and is a subsidiary or branch of District No. 10, United Mine Workers of America; that the officers and members of District No. 10, United Mine Workers of America, number approximately 2,000 persons, and are too numerous to name as defendants; that the officers and members of Newcastle Local No. 2362, United Mine Workers of America, comprising several hundred persons, are too numerous to be named individually as defendants.

It is further alleged that the value of the mines of plaintiff is many hundred thousand dollars; that for many years prior to November 1, 1917, it had operated its mines under agreements in writing with District No. 10, which agreements affect wages, working conditions, etc., of the miners; that on November 1, 1917, plaintiff entered into a contract with District No. 10 which fixed a scale of wages and working conditions which should continue in effect for a period not exceeding two years from August 31, 1918; that the mines of plaintiff, including the Newcastle mine, were operated under the agreement of November 1, 1917, until November 1, 1919, at which time the men employed in its mines went on strike contrary to the terms of the contract, and remained on strike until December 14, 1919, at which time the mines were reopened under a temporary settlement effected by the President of the United States, under which the workmen were given an increase of 14 per cent. over the wage scale in effect in November, 1919, such increase to remain in effect pending the creation of a National Bituminous Coal Commission, and the determination by that Commission of a wage scale to be used as a basis for new agreements; that on March 10, 1920, the United States Bituminous Coal Commission, which had been appointed by the President, made its report, but specifically excepted the state of Washington; that Commission directed that District No. 10 and Washington Coal Operators' Association each select two members of a commission, and that the four parties so selected should appoint an experienced mining engineer, who should also be a member of the commission; this commission was to report within 30 days to the joint conference of mine workers and operators of the state of Washington concerning the application of the awards made elsewhere to the agreements and schedules of this state; a wage scale was agreed on by the Washington commission on about July 20, 1920, and put into effect August 1, 1920; that about August 29, 1920, District No. 10, through its officers, began requesting conferences with plaintiff and other coal operators in this state, for the purpose of presenting demands for a further increase of $1.50 per day to all scale men, because such increase had been granted by operators to miners in the Eastern coal fields of the United States; that in order to prevent a strike plaintiff was obliged to and did grant the increase effective September 10, 1920, it being distinctly understood that it would be impossible to continue that increase for any definite length of time; that the scale of wages made effective on September 10, 1920, remained in effect until March 15, 1921; that on February 28, 1921, plaintiff, being unable to pay the scale of wages then in effect, notified in writing all of its employees of such fact, and that on and after March 15, 1921, the wage scale and contract of October 19, 1919, would be put into effect; that in April, 1921, a commission was formed by the director of labor and industries of this state to determine the basis upon which operations could be resumed in the coal mines; in June the commission submitted a wage scale, which wage scale was promptly accepted by plaintiff; on about August 5, 1921, the defendant District No. 10, United Mine Workers of America, and the defendant Newcastle Local No. 2362 refused to accept the proposed wage scale, or any reduction in wages, and since that time most of the members of the local have not worked in plaintiff's mines; that about August 9, 1921, the plaintiff began preparations to open its Newcastle mine, and to secure the necessary employees therefor; that operation of the mine was resumed August 15, 1921; that the defendants at all times thereafter have been determined to prevent, and are now determining and attempting to prevent, plaintiff from operating its mine unless and until it shall agree to pay the scale of wages in effect at the time the operation thereof ceased, as above set forth, and until it shall employ only members of the defendant District and Local Union; that plaintiff did not discharge its employees, but they refuse to work for it, and left their employment; that, in order to secure the necessary employees to operate its mine, plaintiff has been compelled to bring men in from other parts of the state and elsewhere, and the means of transportation to the village of Newcastle is by railroad and stage line, which stage line is operated by the defendant Thompson; that it is necessary that employees traveling to Newcastle disembark from the railroad train and stage line at a distance of about one-fifth of a mile from the hotel, at which they can remain, and are required to go about one-third of a mile from the depot to the mine of the plaintiff; that on and since August 15, 1921, upon the arrival of railroad trains and stages at Newcastle carrying employees of plaintiff, the members of District No. 10, approximately 150 to 200 in number, together with many women and children, congregate about the depot and terminus of the stage line and meet plaintiff's employees as they arrive, and hiss, hoot, jeer, yell, and call them 'scabs' and other epithets, and make demonstrations such that the employees of plaintiff are put in fear for their personal safety, all of which is done by the defendants for the sole and only purpose of preventing such employees from going to work or remaining at work at plaintiff's mine, and not otherwise; that the county roads in the vicinity have been and are picketed, and the roads in and around plaintiff's mine have been and are picketed; that the employees of plaintiff are compelled to go to and return from their work through the picket line thus formed; that the pickets hiss, hoot, jeer, and yell 'scab' and other epithets while such employees are on the roads; that the picketers are members of District No. 10, and the picket line is established for the purpose of aiding the defendants in preventing plaintiff from operating its property and employing men to work in its Newcastle mine; that, by reason of the acts and things done by the defendants for the purposes mentioned, the employees of plaintiff fear for their personal safety, and are induced to leave its employ; that the actions of defendants are done solely for the purpose of intimidating the workmen who seek and desire employment, in order to prevent them from accepting and remaining in such employment at the plaintiff's mine; that, if defendants are not enjoined from such acts, plaintiff, by reason thereof, will be unable to operate its mines except with a large and substantial loss, and will be prevented from supplying itself with the required labor; that the acts above set forth constitute a conspiracy on the part of the defendants for the purposes above stated; that the defendants herein are all insolvent.

It was further alleged that the plaintiff had already been damaged in the sum of $10,000, and that, unless the...