State ex rel. Lumber and Sawmill Workers v. Superior Court for Pierce County

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MILLARD, Justice.
• Citation: State ex rel. Lumber and Sawmill Workers v. Superior Court for Pierce County, 164 P.2d 662, 24 Wn.2d 314 (Wash. 1945)
• Decision Date: 12 December 1945
• Docket Number: 29810.,29809
• Parties: STATE ex rel. LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR PIERCE COUNTY et al. STATE ex rel. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY et al.

164 P.2d 662

24 Wn.2d 314

STATE ex rel. LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR PIERCE COUNTY et al.

STATE ex rel. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY et al.

Nos. 29809, 29810.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

December 12, 1945

Original proceeding by the State, on the relation of Lumber and Sawmill Workers and others, against the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County and others, and by the State on the relation of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and others, against the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Grays Harbor County and others, for writ of certiorari, writ of review, and writ of prohibition to review orders enjoining picketing. The two causes were consolidated.

Causes remanded with directions to vacate the restraining orders.

BEALS C.J., and STEINERT and JEFFERS, JJ., dissenting.

Wettrick Flood & O'Brien, of Seattle, for relators.

Ray DeKraay, of Aberdeen, and Houghton, Cluck & Coughlin and Robert C. Finley, all of Seattle, for respondents.

MILLARD Justice.

The International Woodworkers of America (hereinafter designated I. W. A.) Locals Nos. 9 and 129, are voluntary associations affiliated with the Congress for Industrial Organization commonly known as the C. I. O. E. O. Lohre et al. are officers and members of the two voluntary associations. The membership of the I. W. A. works in the lumber industry from stump to finished product. The geographical units of the I. W. A. are designated 'district councils.' Collective bargaining on behalf of the local unions is negotiated by an agency of the international negotiating committee in Portland, Ore., which is composed of representatives from each district in the northwest. The two I. W. A. locals had a contract with the St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Company in Pierce county, Wash., under which the locals were the sole collective bargaining agencies in that plant in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. The contract in question is subject to termination June 1st of each year and may be reopened upon notice prior to that date for charges which are desired. Prior to June, 1945, the contract with the St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Company was not automatically renewed as to prior wage scales, but a new wage of $1,15 an hour minimum rate in lieu of the minimum rate of .90¢ an hour in the old contract was demanded. The employer and the I. W. A. were unable to effect a settlement of the dispute, whereupon negotiations were had and still are continuing under the auspices of the United States conciliation service. In August, 1945, a poll of the membership within the area under the jurisdiction of the international negotiating committee on the question of authorization of a strike resulted overwhelmingly in favor of delegation of authority to the international negotiating committee to call a strike whenever the committee saw fit to do so.

Within the jurisdiction of the membership of the I. W. A. are the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and Northern California. The I. W. A. has jurisdiction of all logging, sawmill, plywood and box plant operations in those states. The I. W. A. negotiated through and with all employer associations including the lumbermen's industrial relations committee with which the St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Company is affiliated, as well as other employer associations within the area.

The Tacoma district council is a member of the northwestern council of the lumber and sawmill workers which negotiates for the American federation of labor all matters within collective bargaining with the various employer associations, including the lumbermen's industrial relations committee, which is the same employer committee of which the St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co. is a subscribing member. The northwestern council's efforts, commenced in June, 1945, to obtain a twenty-five percent wage inerease raising the minimum wage from .90¢ to $1.10 an hour, were unsuccessful, whereupon a strike vote was had in August which resulted in authorization of the A. F. of L. membership to strike. The strike was called in September, 1945. The American Federation of Labor picketed the Congress for Industrial Organization plants to induce industry-wide action on wage demands.

The testimony is in conflict as to the number of pickets at the plant of St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber company in Pierce county the first day, September 26, 1945, picketing commenced; however, it is clear that while there may have been mass picketing in the beginning, the number was considerably reduced. There was no violence, no list of names kept of those going through or refusing to go through the picket line. On petition of the I. W. A. and its officers the superior court of the state of Washington for Pierce county entered an order enjoining the northwestern council et al. from maintaining a picket line at the plant of the St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Company.

The Grays Harbor district council A. F. of L., which is composed of employees engaged in lumber and logging operations, joined with members of the lumber and sawmill workers A. F. of L. in the demand for a minimum wage of $1.10 an hour throughout the lumber industry. The members of the foregoing organization who were on strike in an endeavor to achieve the purpose stated caused a picket line to be placed at and near certain lumber and sawmill plants in Grays Harbor county employing members of the I. W. A. In this case, as in the Pierce county case, the I. W. A. had been formally certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the sole collective bargaining agency. The facts in the two cases are not dissimilar. Those affiliated with the A. F. of L. were endeavoring to persuade those affiliated with the C. I. O. to co-operate with the A. F. of L. in its endeavor to obtain an equal wage adjustment in favor of all employees whether A. F. of L. or C. I. O. in the lumber industry. There was no violence in connection with the picketing. There was no interference with, or intimidation of, any employee.

In the Grays Harbor county case, as in the Pierce county case, on petition of the I. W. A. and its officers, an order was entered enjoining the affiliates of the A. F. of L. from picketing the plants. No member of the A. F. of L. was employed in any of the plants involved in the two cases.

The two causes have been consolidated and are now Before us on certiorari to review the restraining orders.

The question is, as stated by relators: May a state court enjoin one labor union from peacefully picketing the plant of an employer who, pursuant to an order of the National Labor Relations Board, recognizes another labor union as bargaining agent, where the purpose of the picketing is to urge the employees who are members of the certified collective bargaining agency to pursue a course of action similar to that which the other union is following in a campaign waged by both unions for a similar wage increase throughout the industry common to both?

Respondents insist that they, as well as relators, are equally interested in the maintenance of the right of labor to organize, bargain collectively, picket and to strike; and that they are interested, too, in a broad and liberal recognition of the right of free speech and other civil rights. It is argued, however, that the long-run interests of labor require the recognition of reasonable limitations upon picketing, which should be used as a means fo securing concessions from employers but should never be used against labor itself. It further urged that the restraining orders entered by the superior courts were justified by fair application of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.

So far as pertinent, the act reads as follows:

'The denial by employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce; (b) occurring in the current of commerce; (c) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials of goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of commerce.

'The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract, and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries.

'Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees.

'It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of

...