Rogers v. Poteet

• Decision Date: 10 February 1947
• Docket Number: 39682
• Citation: 199 S.W.2d 378,355 Mo. 986
• Parties: Steve Rogers v. C. A. Poteet, R. O. Jackson, Harry Wright, Steve Mitchell and Claude McGlade, Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

199 S.W.2d 378

355 Mo. 986

Steve Rogers v. C. A. Poteet, R. O. Jackson, Harry Wright, Steve Mitchell and Claude McGlade, Appellants

No. 39682

Supreme Court of Missouri

February 10, 1947

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Paul A. Buzard Judge.

Affirmed and remanded (with directions).

Joseph N. Miniace and Marcy K. Brown, Jr., for appellants.

(1) The court erred in granting injunctive relief because plaintiff's petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Root v. Anderson, 207 S.W. 255; Stephens v. Mound City Liverymen, etc Assn., 246 S.W. 40; Shaltupsky v. Brown Shoe Co., 168 S.W.2d 1083; Co-operative Livestock Comm Co. v. Browning, 168 S.W. 934. (2) A conspiracy must be proved; the evidence must be clear and convincing; neither conjecture nor surmise may be made the basis of such an action; circumstances as consistent with a lawful purpose as with an unlawful are insufficient; and the burden of proof is at all times on the person charging conspiracy. Wolfersberger v. Miller, 39 S.W.2d 758; Lampton Realty Co. v. Hoyt, 80 S.W.2d 249; Woosley v. Wells, 281 S.W. 695; Walsh v. Walsh, 226 S.W. 236; 12 C.J. 629, sec. 234. (3) The actions of defendants, members of the local union, constitute nothing more than legal means to effectuate a lawful act. Crescent Planing Mill Co. v. Mueller, 123 S.W.2d 193; Frank Schmidt Planing Mill Co. v. Mueller, 154 S.W.2d 1. c. 614; Stapleton, International Representative, v. Mitchell, Attorney General, 60 F.Supp. 51. (4) A bona fide labor dispute exists under the evidence. Crescent Planing Mill Co. v. Mueller, supra; Frank Schmidt Planing Mill Co. v. Mueller, supra; Milk Wagon Drivers Union v. Lake Valley Farm Products, Inc., 311 U.S. 91, 61 S.Ct. 122. (5) Plaintiffs are not independent contractors but if they are, they may still be brought into the union organization. N.L.R.B. v. Hearst Publications, 64 S.Ct. 851; Milk Wagon Drivers Union v. Lake Valley Farm Products, Inc., supra; Bakery & Pastry Drivers & Helpers v. Wohl, 62 S.Ct. 816. (6) Union members may sell or withhold their labor on such terms as they choose, associate or decline to associate with other workers or may accept, refuse to accept, or terminate a relationship of employment without being subject to injunction under anti-trust acts or pool, combination and conspiracy acts. Hunt v. Crumboch, 65 S.Ct. 1545. (7) The fact that no relationship of employer and employee exists does not prevent the existence of a bona fide labor dispute. Lauf v. E. J. Shinner & Co., 82 F.2d 68, reversed in 303 U.S. 323, 58 S.Ct. 578; Senn v. Tile Layers Protective Union, 57 S.Ct. 857; American Federation of Labor v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321, 61 S.Ct. 568; Bakery & Pastry Drivers & Helpers v. Wohl, supra; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 60 S.Ct. 736. (8) The court erred in issuing the injunction herein because the same is not specific so as to inform defendants what they can or cannot do; it fails to conform to the pleadings or evidence and is vague and indefinite, it enjoins the lawful as well as alleged unlawful acts and is therefore void, inoperative and incapable of enforcement. Commission Row Club v. Lambert, 161 S.W.2d 732; Magel et ux. v. Gruetli Benevolent Society, 218 S.W. 704; Ex parte Heffron, 162 S.W. 652. (9) The injunction granted herein is void and unconstitutional in that in its operation, under its terms it necessarily is in violation of the Constitution of the State of Missouri, 1945, in that the acts enjoined constitute, in effect, the passage of a law impairing the freedom of speech, contrary to Art. I, Sec. 8, thereof; in that the same deprives defendants of life, liberty and property without due process of law in violation of Sec. 10, Art. I, thereof; that it deprives employees of the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, in violation of Art. XIV of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, in that said decree acts as and enforces a state law which abridges the privileges and immunities of defendants, citizens of the United States, and operates as a state action depriving defendants of life, liberty and property without due process of law and denies to defendants within this state the equal protection of the laws. State v. Julow, 31 S.W. 781; Marx & Haas Jeans Clothing Co. v. Watson, 67 S.W. 391; Stapleton, International Representative, v. Mitchell, Attorney General, supra; Senn v. Tile Layers Union, 301 U.S. 468; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 106; American Federation of Labor v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321, 61 S.Ct. 568; Bakery & Pastry Drivers & Helpers v. Wohl, 315 U.S. 769, 62 S.Ct. 816.

Gage, Hillix, Shrader, Cowherd & Phelps for respondent.

(1) Plaintiff's petition stated facts which, if sustained by the evidence, amply warranted granting injunctive relief. Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle, 215 Mo. 421, 114 S.W. 997; Purcell v. Journeymen Barbers, 223 Mo.App. 843, 133 S.W.2d 662; Burke v. Fay, 120 Mo.App. 690, 107 S.W. 408; Olcott Planing Mill Co. v. Fuelle, 114 S.W. 1013. (2) The court committed no error in granting injunctive relief because the evidence clearly established an unlawful conspiracy. Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle, supra; Hughes v. Motion Picture Machine Operators, 282 Mo. 304, 221 S.W. 95; United Leather Workers International Union v. Herkert & Meisel Co., 284 F. 446; Seegers v. Mark & Haas Clothing Co., 334 Mo. 632, 66 S.W.2d 526; Harelson v. Tyler, 281 Mo. 383, 219 S.W. 908; Clarkson v. Laiblan, 178 Mo.App. 708, 161 S.W. 660; Dietrich v. Cape Brewery & Ice Co., 315 Mo. 507, 286 S.W. 315; State of Missouri ex rel. to use of DeVault v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 107 F.2d 343; Flori v. Dolph, 192 S.W. 949; Ross v. St. Louis Dairy Co., 339 Mo. 982, 98 S.W.2d 717; Baker v. Scott County Milling Co., 323 Mo. 1089, 20 S.W.2d 494; Rutherford v. Tobin Quarries, 336 Mo. 1171, 82 S.W.2d 918. (3) The injunction is not so vague and indefinite as to be incapable of enforcement. City of Carthage v. Empire Electric Co., 193 Mo.App. 565, 183 S.W. 718; Magee v. Pope, 234 Mo.App. 191, 112 S.W.2d 891; United States v. Elliott, 64 F. 27; St. Louis v. Knapp, Stout & Co., 104 U.S. 658. (4) The injunction granted herein is not in contravention of the Constitution of Missouri nor of the United States. Joe Dan Market v. Wentz, 223 Mo.App. 772, 20 S.W.2d 567; Public Service Comm. of the State of Missouri v. Brashear Freight Lines, 312 U.S. 621, 85 L.Ed. 1083; Hughes v. Motion Picture Machine Operators, supra.

OPINION

Ellison, J.

This injunction suit is here on an appeal by five of the seven defendants from a decree of the circuit court of Jackson County, dated May 2, 1945, perpetually enjoining them from hindering, interfering with or preventing in any respect whatsoever, the receipt, unloading and processing of any milk brought to the Borden Dairy Company in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri by the plaintiff-respondent, Steve Rogers, his agents, employees or representatives. The other two defendants were discharged below.

The defendants-appellants are members of a labor union which has unionized the Borden Dairy Company plant (and others) in Kansas City. Pursuant to a union plan the appellants refused to unload milk delivered to that plant by respondent Rogers for himself and others, because he was not a member of their union. He thereupon brought this suit on the theory that appellants were violating our conspiracy statute, Sec. 8301; ^[1] and that he was an independent contract hauler of the milk and not subject to being unionized. Appellants challenge the sufficiency of the petition, evidence, and decree.

They deny that they are conspirators; and contend respondent Rogers is not an independent contractor, but works under the control of the Pure Milk Producers Association of Greater Kansas City, hereinafter called the Producers Association, a non-profit co-operative corporation organized under Sec. 14335 et seq.; and that a bona fide labor dispute exists. Both parties invoke constitutional law.

The union to which appellants belong is Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees Local Union No. 207, hereinafter called the Union or the local Union. It is chartered by the Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, an international union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. All classes of dairy employees, inside and outside, and all workers employed in the manufacture and distribution of milk and dairy products, are within the jurisdiction of the Brotherhood. The local union was chartered with jurisdiction over all persons so engaged in Jackson County, Missouri, and adjacent territory in Missouri and Kansas. It is a horizontal, closed shop union, and has organized all nonsupervisory employees of the seven milk processing plants in Jackson County, including the Borden Dairy Company and the Aines Dairy, and of three plants across the State line in Kansas. The Borden Dairy Company maintains some milk routes of its own in Kansas City, as we understand. In all, the Union has 1000 or 1100 members. It is now attempting to bring into the Union the rural milk haulers who transport fresh fluid milk to these plants from the producing area around Kansas City.

The size of the area is not clear. At the times here involved there were 55 haulers therein, of whom 15 or 20 worked out of Kansas; and 42 of them had joined the Union. The towns mentioned by the five nonunion haulers who testified, or named in the signed Union membership blanks offered in evidence, show the milk hauling was done in the following seven Missouri counties: Caldwell, Cass, Clay, Clinton Henry, Jackson and Johnson. They have a total area of 4127 square miles. There are three other counties equally close to Kansas City, but not mentioned: Lafayette, Platte...