United Union Brewing Co. v. Beck, 27554.

• Decision Date: 13 September 1939
• Docket Number: 27554.
• Citation: 200 Wash. 474,93 P.2d 772
• Parties: UNITED UNION BREWING CO. v. BECK et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

93 P.2d 772

200 Wash. 474

UNITED UNION BREWING CO. v. BECK et al.

No. 27554.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 13, 1939

Department 1.

Action by the United Union Brewing Company against Dave Beck and others for loss of business and for and for an injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the marketing of plaintiff's beer and, specifically, from directly of secondarily boycotting such product. Plaintiff's prayer for damages was withdrawn at the end of the trial and, from an adverse order, plaintiff appeals.

Remanded for modification.

BLAKE C.J., dissenting.

Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Roger Meakim, judge.

Henry Clay Agnew, of Seattle, for appellant.

Vanderveer & Bassett, of Seattle, and Clarence J. Coleman, of Everett for respondents.

STEINERT, Justice.

This was an action to recover damages for loss of business sustained by plaintiff through the alleged wrongful and malicious acts of the defendants, and to obtain a permanent injunction restraining defendants from directly or indirectly interfering with the marketing of plaintiff's beer and specifically, from directly or secondarily boycotting such product. By stipulation of the parties at the end of the trial, plaintiff's prayer for damages was withdrawn and certain of the defendants were dismissed from the action.

At the conclusion of the hearing by the court, a decree was entered to which the remaining defendants consented, permanently enjoining them '* * * from employing any threats or intimidations as a means of deterring any merchant from supplying any of plaintiff's customers with commodities of products used or useful in the conduct of their business,' but in all other respects denying plaintiff's prayer for relief.

Deeming itself aggrieved by the inadequacy of the order, in that it did not grant the full relief sought, plaintiff has appealed.

The respective contentions of the parties can best be indicated by a resume of the pleadings.

The complaint presents the situation substantially as follows: Appellant is a corporation organized and qualified under the laws of the state of Washington and is engaged in the business of manufacturing beer, known as Old Empire Beer, and wholesaling it throughout the various counties of this state. Its employees are all members of the International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal and Soft Drink Workers of America, which, for brevity, we shall refer to as Brewery Workers Union. There never has been any dispute between appellant and any of its employees over wages, hours, conditions of employment or any other matter.

Respondent Dave Beck is an international organizer for International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers, hereinafter referred to as the Teamsters Union. The other respondents are local unions under charter from either the parent Teamsters Union or the Culinary Workers and Bartenders Union, which latter is hereinafter referred to as Culinary Workers Union. As such international organizer, Beck exercises complete domination and control over each of the respondent local unions.

During the year preceding December, 1938, respondent Beck, solely for the malicious purpose of destroying appellant's business, directed the respondent local unions in a systematic effort designed to prevent the marketing and distributing of appellant's product. Pursuant to such directions, the respondent locals of the Teamsters Union have refused to deliver products of any kind to any place of business in this state which buys, sells, or possesses appellant's bear, and the respondent locals of the Culinary Workers Union have refused to furnish any bartenders or any employees to any restaurant or tavern that buys, sells, or possesses such beer. Furthermore, the respondent local unions have picketed every retail business in this state which handles appellant's product; the pickets bear signs stating that such picketed premises are unfair to organized labor, although, in fact, no labor dispute exists or has existed at any of such places.

A group of defendants, who by the stipulation were dismissed from the action, are engaged in the business of wholesaling merchandise to restaurants, taverns, and other retail businesses handling beer. Pursuant to respondent Beck's directions these defendants have refused, and still refuse, to sell or deliver any product or furnish any service to such places of business as buy, sell, or possess beer manufactured by appellant. As a consequence, appellant's customers engaged in the retail business are prevented from obtaining desired merchandise and services.

This conduct of respondents has substantially decreased the sale of appellant's beer in this state, and if allowed to continue will cause appellant irreparable damage.

The foregoing constitutes the material allegations of appellant's complaint.

In their answers, respondents, deny all the allegations of the complaint except that appellant's employees are members of the Brewery Workers Union. By way of an affirmative defense, respondents present their side of the controversy as follows: Appellant was organized as a corporation by the Brewery Workers Union, and all its stock is closely held by that organization. Both the Brewery Workers Union and the Teamsters Union were organized pursuant to charters issued by the American Federation of Labor, which we will hereinafter refer to as A. F. of L.

In 1933 a controversy arose between the two unions, as to which had jurisdiction over drivers employed on brewery trucks. Pursuant to the constitution and laws of A. F. of L., that controversy was submitted to the General Executive Council of the federation for decision. The council decided that jurisdiction over the drivers belonged to the Teamsters Union and not to the Brewery Workers Union. Thereupon the Brewery Workers Union appealed consecutively to the conventions of A. F. of L. held in the years 1934, 1935, and 1936, and at each of those conventions the decision of the general executive council was, after full hearing, sustained. Nevertheless, the Brewery Workers Union and the appellant herein, acting in open definance of the decisions of A. F. of L., have continued to man all brewery trucks with members of the Brewery Workers Union, and the members of that union have boycotted the products of all breweries in this state which employed members of the Teamsters Union, as a consequence of which the respondent local unions have, in turn, refused, and now refuse, to haul any product of appellant or to patronize or render any service to any retailer of appellant's products.

Appellant, though contending that respondents' affirmative defense is immaterial to the issues here involved, nevertheless comes forward by way of reply and, after admitting that a majority of its stock is owned by members of the Brewery Workers Union, gives its version of the preexisting controversy between the two unions as follows:

Shortly after its organization in 1887, the Brewery Workers Union, which comprised all employees of the brewing industry including beer truck drivers, was granted a certificate of affiliation by A. F. of L. No Teamsters Union or any union of drivers was granted a certificate of affiliation until twelve years later. One of the objects of A. F. of L., as provided by its constitution, is the establishment of trade unions based upon a strict recognition of the autonomy of each trade and the promotion and advancement of such bodies. The constitution further provides that no charter shall be granted by A. F. of L. to any national, international, trade, or federal labor union without a positive and clear definition of the trade jurisdiction claimed by the applicant, and that no charter shall be granted such applicant if the jurisdiction claimed trespasses on the jurisdiction of any existing affiliated union, unless such affiliate give its written consent thereto. The A. F. of L. has no authority or control over the jurisdiction of the Brewery Workers Union nor can it transfer such jurisdiction to another.

The brewing and delivery of beer throughout the United States, except in the state of Washington and to some extent in the state of Oregon, are now conducted by the Brewery Workers Union.

In 1934 a proposition that the Teamsters Union be given jurisdiction over certain drivers was submitted to a referendum vote of the members of the Brewery Workers Union, and the result of that vote was 170 in favor of such proposal and 14,161 against it.

There are in the United States approximately 12,000 members of the Brewery Workers Union who are engaged as beer truck drivers. For many years the Brewery Workers Union has issued charters throughout the principal cities of the United States to local unions composed of members who are either exclusively beer truck drivers or else handle, in part, deliveries of all brewery products; these locals and their members participate in the sick benefits and insurance features provided by their parent union.

In spite of these general conditions pertaining to jurisdiction, respondents Beck and the Teamsters Union have by illegal boycotts seized control of all breweries in the state of Washington except that of appellant and are engaged not only in the delivery, but also in the brewing and bottling, of beer.

The pleadings, as we have summarized them, present the background which gave rise to this controversy and reveal the existence of a protracted struggle between two powerful international unions for the right to exercise jurisdiction over particular type of employment.

The evidence introduced upon the trial, as it appears from a narrative statement of facts, is not in dispute.

Appellant called as witnesses seventeen tavern operators, a hotel...