Vogt, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 695, A. F. L.

Citation71 N.W.2d 359,270 Wis. 315
Parties, 36 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2326, 28 Lab.Cas. P 69,334 VOGT, Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation, Respondent, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 695, A. F. L.; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 139, A. F. L.; and Building & Construction Laborers Union, Local 392, A. F. L., Appellants.
Decision Date28 June 1955
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

In 1954 plaintiff operated a gravel pit in the town of Oconomowoc, Waukesha County. It was engaged in the business of producing and selling washed sand and gravel and ready-mixed concrete. For the operation of its business it received by truck cement, steel products and other materials. On July 13, 1954 the defendant unions stationed pickets at the entrance to plaintiff's property on a town road upon which plaintiff's property abuts. The location was not frequented by the general public. The pickets carried signs reading:

'The men on this job are not 100% affiliated with the A.F.L.

Building & Construction Laborers Union, Local 392

Operating Engineers Union, Local 139 Teamsters Union Local 695'

Because of the picketing some of the truck drivers who had been hauling materials to plaintiff's plant refused to cross the picket line to deliver materials. Pliantiff's employees had been solicited to join defendant unions but had refused and had indicated that they did not desire to join. No labor dispute or controversy of any kind existed. None of the members of the defendant unions were in plaintiff's employ. The trial court found as follows:

'2. That the drivers of several trucking companies have refused to deliver and haul goods and materials to and from plaintiff's premises as a result and in consequence of defendant's picketing of the plaintiff's premises, resulting in great inefficiency, inconvenience, extra labor and expense, and much damage to plaintiff.

'3. That the facts as alleged in paragraph 13 of the complaint, admitted in paragraph 7 of the defendants' answer, are true and correct, and further, that the plaintiff's employees do not desire to join defendant labor organizations and continue to refuse to become members of such labor organizations.

'4. That the purpose of the picketing was to induce the plaintiff's employees to organize and affiliate with defendant's (sic).

'5. That no labor dispute or controversy has been or is in existence between the plaintiff and any of its employees, or between the plaintiff and the defendants, concerning the right or process or details of collective bargaining, or concerning the designation of bargaining representatives, and that the picketing of the plaintiff's premises by the defendants was not undertaken because of any such labor dispute or controversy, as defined in Sec. 103.62(3), Wis.Stats.'

Upon appropriate conclusions of law judgment was entered on November 9, 1954 permanently restraining defendants from picketing at the premises. Defendants appeal.

Padway, Goldberg & Previant, Milwaukee, David Previant and David Leo Uelmen, Milwaukee, of counsel for appellants.

Lamfrom & Peck, Milwaukee, Leon B. Lamfrom, Jacob L. Bernheim, Milwaukee, Hilbert W. Dahms, Oconomowoc, of counsel, for respondent.

GEHL, Justice.

In a memorandum opinion filed by the trial judge he stated his conclusion that the picketing had not been conducted for an unlawful purpose, but that it constituted a violation of section 103.535, Stats. which provides as follows:

'Unlawful conduct in labor controversies. It shall be unlawful for anyone to picket, or induce others to picket, the establishment, employes, supply or delivery vehicles, or customers of anyone engaged in business, or to interfere with his business, or interfere with any person or persons desiring to transact or transacting business with him, when no labor dispute, as defined in subsection (3) of section 103.62, exists between such employer and his employees or their representatives.'

Sec. 103.62 Stats. provides:

'* * * (3) The term 'labor dispute' means any controversy between an employer and the majority of his employes in a collective bargaining unit concerning the right or process or details of collective bargaining or the designation of representatives. Any organization with which either the employer or such majority is affiliated may be considered a party to the labor dispute. The provisions of this subsection shall supersede any provision of the statutes in conflict therewith.'

The question whether picketing as it is described in these statutes, but otherwise lawful, may be enjoined, has not been squarely presented to this court. Counsel for defendants contend that if sec. 103.535 is to be construed as authorizing such action it is invalid as depriving defendants of the right of free speech in violation of the federal and the state constitutions. We have held that if the picketing is conducted in violation of section 111.06(2)(a) or 111.06(2)(b) Statutes it is done for an unlawful purpose and may be enjoined. Retail Clerks' Union, etc., v. Wisconsin E. R. Board, 242 Wis. 21, 6 N.W.2d 698, 149 A.L.R. 452; Christoffel v. Wisconsin E. R. Board, 243 Wis. 332, 10 N.W.2d 197; Wisconsin E. R. Board v. Retail Clerks Int. Union, 264 Wis. 189, 58 N.W.2d 655. The United States Supreme Court has also recognized that picketing if conducted for an unlawful purpose may be prohibited by state statute. Building Service Emp. Intern. Union v. Gazzam, 339 U.S. 532, 70 S.Ct. 784, 94 L.Ed. 1045.

Sec. 111.06(2) provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employee individually or in concert with others:

'(a) To coerce or intimidate an employe in the enjoyment of his legal rights, including those guaranteed in section 111.04, or to intimidate his family, picket his domicile, or injure the person or property of such employe or his family.

'(b) To coerce, intimidate or induce any employer to interfere, with any of his employes in the enjoyment of their legal rights, including those guaranteed in section 111.04, or to engage in any practice with regard to his employes which would constitute an unfair labor practice if undertaken by him on his own initiative.'

Counsel for plaintiff contend that the picketing was conducted in violation of these provisions and therefore for an unlawful purpose. The trial judge did not find facts which would have supported a conclusion that either subdivision had been violated; he went no further than to find 'that the purpose of the picketing was to induce the employees to organize and affiliate with defendant's', (sic) and rejected a finding requested by the plaintiff as follows:

'4. That the picketing of plaintiff's premises has been engaged in for the purpose of coercing, intimidating and inducing the employer to force, compel, or induce its employees to become members of defendant labor organizations, and for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Messner v. Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers and Cosmetologists, Intern. Union of America, Local 256
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 7, 1960
    ...1112, 1115 (1-3)), certiorari denied, 354 U.S. 942, 77 S.Ct. 1392, 1 L.Ed.2d 1536. Wisconsin: Vogt, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (1956), 270 Wis. 315, 321a, 71 N.W.2d 359 (74 N.W.2d 749, 753(5), 755(6)), affirmed, Teamsters Union v. Vogt, Inc. (1957), 354 U.S. 284, 294, 77......
  • Binder v. Construction and General Laborers Local Union No. 685
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • October 5, 1957
    ...were made by the Union in this direction with plaintiffs. The foregoing factual situation is presented in Vogt, Inc., v. International Brotherhood, 270 Wis. 315, 71 N.W.2d 359, (rehearing, 74 N.W.2d 749) on writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in International Brotherhood of......
  • Compton v. Shopko Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1980
    ...Boutelle Case (also cited by the majority), 34 Wis.2d 665, 673, 150 N.W.2d 486 (1967), which in turn cites Vogt, Inc. v. International Brotherhood, 270 Wis. 315, 321i, 71 N.W.2d 359, 74 N.W.2d 749 (1955). In Vogt this court carefully discussed the difference between questions of fact and qu......
  • Phelps v. Physicians Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • July 10, 2009
    ...circuit court's factual findings disappears when the circuit court does not see or hear witnesses' testimony. Vogt, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. Teamsters, 270 Wis. 315, 71 N.W.2d 359 (1955), on reargument, 270 Wis. 321b, 321i, 74 N.W.2d 749 (1956). Numerous Wisconsin cases have recognized that when ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT