Teamsters Local No. 783 v. National Linen Service No. 63

• Court: United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
• Citation: 472 S.W.2d 671
• Parties: 78 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2637, 66 Lab.Cas. P 12,154 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #783, etc., et al., Appellants, v. NATIONAL LINEN SERVICE #63, etc., Appellee.
• Decision Date: 29 October 1971

Page 671

472 S.W.2d 671

78 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2637, 66 Lab.Cas. P 12,154

TEAMSTERS LOCAL #783, etc., et al., Appellants, v. NATIONAL LINEN SERVICE #63, etc., Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 29, 1971.

Herbert L. Segal, John Frith Stewart, Irwin H. Cutler, Jr., Segal, Isenberg, Sales & Stewart, Louisville, for appellants.

Wells T. Lovett, Lovett, Kusch & Wible, Owensboro, for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

Teamsters Local No. 783 and various officers and members of that union appeal from a judgment of the Daviess Circuit Court which quashed an injunction bond given by appellee National Linen Service No. 63 in an action brought by the latter against the appellants, and which dissolved the restraining order for which the bond was given, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The judgment was entered on motion of the appellee. Prior thereto the appellants had moved that the restraining order be dissolved and the action dismissed; reserving, however, the question of 'proceeding against the bond' for costs, attorneys' fees and other appropriate relief.

The appellants maintain that the record shows conclusively that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action, wherefore the restraining order was wrongfully issued, and the appellants were entitled, under CR 65.05, to enforce liability on the bond by motion in the original action. The appellee argues that the circuit court did have jurisdiction of the action, or at least had jurisdiction to issue a valid restraining order pending resolution of the question of ultimate jurisdiction; and that in any event the action properly was dismissed as moot.

National Linen Service No. 63 is the Owensboro, Kentucky, branch of National Service Industries, which also has two branches in Louisville and one in Lexington. Teamsters Local No. 783 represents the employes of the two Louisville plants. Teamsters Local No. 215 represents the employes of the Owensboro plant, under a separate collective bargaining agreement.

Early in October 1970 Local No. 783 commenced a strike at the two Louisville plants, and on October 14, 1970, members of that local began picketing at the Owensboro plant, to further the interests of their Louisville strike. On the same day National Linen Service No. 63 filed an unfair-labor-practice charge with the NLRB, against Local No. 783 (which charge subsequently was withdrawn), and instituted the action here in question, in the Daviess Circuit Court, against Local No. 783 and various of its officers and members . Immediately upon the filing of the action and the giving of bond, an ex parte restraining order was issued against the defendants in the action.

On October 21 the defendants gave notice that they would move that the restraining order be dissolved and the complaint be dismissed, and on October 30 they filed a motion asking for such relief but that the question of recovery on the injunction bond be reserved. No ruling was made by the court on the motion. Subsequently, on November 20, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the action with prejudice, dissolve the restraining order and quash the injunction bond. In that motion it was stated that the strike in Louisville had ended on October 27. Ultimately, on December 18, the circuit court entered the judgment here on appeal, which granted the relief sought by the plaintiff's motion of November 20. In the judgment the court recited that 'the case is now moot, and * * * the Court had jurisdiction to issue a Restraining Order, and to maintain the status quo, pending its resolution of the question of its jurisdiction.'

The appellants maintain that their picketing activity was arguably a violation of section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act and therefore the state circuit court was without jurisdiction in the matter, under Garner v. Teamsters Local Union No. 776, 346 U.S. 485, 74 S.Ct. 161, 98 L.Ed. 228; San Diego Building Trades Council, Millmen's Union, Local 2020 v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775; Local No. 438, Construction & General Laborers' Union, AFL-CIO v. Curry, 371 U.S. 542, 83 S.Ct. 531, 9 L.Ed.2d 514; Weber v . Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U.S. 468, 75 S.Ct. 480, 99 L.Ed. 546; International Longshoremen's Local 1416 v. Ariadne Shipping Co., 397 U.S. 195, 90 S.Ct. 872, 25 L.Ed.2d 218; and National Electric Service Corporation v. District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Ky., 279 S.W.2d 808.

The appellee claims that this case falls within exceptions to the exclusive original jurisdiction of the NLRB. The first claimed exception, recognized in Armco Steel Corporation v. Perkins, Ky., 411 S.W.2d 935, is of cases of violation of no-strike provisions of collective bargaining contracts. The appellee points out that its collective bargaining contract with Local No. 215 contained a no-strike clause, and appellee argues that the activity of the appellants violated that clause, so as...