Taylor v. Bean, 5-2749
| Decision Date | 02 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-2749,5-2749 |
| Parties | Floyd TAYLOR et al., Petitioners, v. Wiley W. BEAN, Chancellor, Respondent. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
McMath, Leatherman, Woods & Youngdahl, Little Rock, for petitioners.
Jack Rose, Fort Smith, for respondent.
Ten days ago the petitioners, as representatives of the Communication Workers of America, an unincorporated labor union, applied to this court for a temporary writ of prohibition to restrain the respondent from proceeding further in a case pending in the Pope chancery court. The writ was granted by a per curiam order which explained that a written opinion in the matter would be delivered later. This is that opinion.
Eighty-one employees of Western Arkansas Telephone Company, Inc., filed the suit below against their employer and against the petitioners as representatives of the union. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs constituted a majority of the company's 113 employees and that they did not wish to be represented by the union in collective bargaining with the employer. The prayer was that the defendants be enjoined from engaging in any labor-management negotiations that might affect the rights of the plaintiffs.
When the complaint was filed the chancellor issued a temporary order enjoining the employer and the union from negotiating with respect to the rights of the plaintiffs. At a hearing a few weeks later the chancellor overruled the petitioners' objections to the court's jurisdiction and continued the preliminary order in force. The present application for prohibition was then filed here.
It is conceded that the employer is engaged in interstate commerce to an extent sufficient to make its labor relations subject to the Taft-Hartley Law, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. On November 15, 1960, the National Labor Relations Board, after having conducted an election among the company's employees, certified that this labor union had been selected as the exclusive bargining unit by a vote of 61 to 59. This is the authority under which the union now asserts the right to represent the telephone company's employees in negotiations for a labor contract.
The federal law provides that a new election cannot be held until at least a year has elapsed since the last valid election. 29 U.S.C.A. § 159(c)(3). Accordingly on December 12, 1961, which was about thirteen months after the first election, the 81 dissatisfied employees filed with the National Labor Relations Board what is referred to as a decertification petition, asking that a new election be conducted to determine whether the union was still favored by a majority of the workers. 29 U.S.C.A. § 159(c)(1)(A)(ii). This petition was dismissed by the Board because there was then pending before the Board a charge by the union that the employer had been guilty of unfair labor practices. It is the established policy of the Board not to consider an application for an election until such charges have first been disposed of. Upon the dismissal of their decertification petition the 81...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitcham v. Ark-La Const. Co.
...Labor Relations Board and that the lower (State) Court was thus without jurisdiction relying on such authorities as Taylor v. Bean, 234 Ark. 932, 355 S.W.2d 602 (1962); International Bro. of Teamsters, etc. v. Blassingame, 226 Ark. 614, 293 S.W.2d 444 (1956) (dissenting opinion); Article VI......
- Watkins v. Johnson, 5-2624