W. E. Anderson Sons Co. v. Local Union No. 311, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America
| Citation | 156 Ohio St. 541,104 N.E.2d 22 |
| Decision Date | 13 February 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 32436,32436 |
| Parties | , 46 O.O. 460 W. E. ANDERSON SONS CO. v. LOCAL UNION NO. 311, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, STABLEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where no unlawful purpose or object is involved, workers may by means of picketing or bannering announce their grievances to the public and thus persuade or seek to persuade prospective employees as well as prospective customers of the person against whom the picketing or bannering is directed from dealing with such person.
2. A boycott may be defined in general terms as a concerted refrainment from business relations with another, or a concerted persuasion of third persons outside the combination to so refrain. It may be primary where there is a concerted refrainment from business relations with another, or by peaceful means a concerted inducement of others outside the combination to so refrain; or it may be secondary where there is not merely a concerted refrainment from business relations with the person against whom the boycott is directed or by peaceful means a concerted inducement of others outside the combination to so refrain, but an exercise of economic pressure upon such others to cause them to refrain from business relations with the person against whom the boycott is directed, through fear of loss or damage to themselves if they refuse to do so.
3. Where a building trades union which has a labor dispute with one of several subcontractors on a construction job pickets and banners the construction site for the purpose of inducing the craft employees of the general contractor to quit their employment in concert and thereby bring about a work stoppage on the entire construction job, all for the further purpose of influencing such general contractor to cause the discharge of the subcontractor with whom the union has the labor dispute, such picketing and bannering constitute a secondary boycott.
4. Picketing or bannering as a means of exercising the right of free speech will be afforded constitutional protection so long as it is lawfully conducted, but the right of free speech is predicated on the lawful exercise of such right, and if, through conspiracy or unlawful conduct, the result of its exercise by such means unlawfully injures another in his property rights, the guaranty ceases and the exercise of the claimed right by such means may be enjoined or prohibited.
5. Picketing or bannering for the purpose of aiding or bringing about a secondary boycott may be enjoined.
This is an action brought in the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County to enjoin certain alleged conduct on the part of the defendants tending to interfere with and prevent the plaintiff from carrying out its contractual and usual business activities.
The plaintiff, W. E. Anderson Sons Company, hereinafter designated Anderson, is a corporation having its place of business in the city of Columbus where it is engaged in the business of transporting and delivering by motor truck building materials and other commodities. For that purpose it owns and operates about 60 trucks and employs drivers to operate them.
The defendant Local Union No. 311, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America, hereinafter designated local union, is an association the members of which are employed as operators of motor trucks and motor vehicles. A number of such members own and operate their own trucks. The defendant Don Pfeiffer is the president and business agent of the local union. The defendant Columbus Building Trades Council is an association of local unions operating in the Columbus area, created by authority of the Building Trades of the American Federation of Labor, and is composed of delegates or affiliates of various local unions connected with the building trades, including the local unions named as defendants in this action. The defendant Phil O'Day is an officer of such building trades council.
In February 1949, the James I. Barnes Construction Company, hereinafter designated Barnes, was the general contractor engaged in the construction of one of the buildings constituting University Health Center on the campus of Ohio State University at Columbus, Ohio, and in such construction work employed a number of subcontractors. In such construction work Barne and all its subcontractors employed only union building trade workers.
One of such subcontractors was H. W. Holt & Son Company, hereinafter designated Holt, which had a subcontract to do the filling and grading work on the construction premises. Holt, in turn, engaged Anderson as its subcontractor to haul bank-run gravel from a borrow pit located outside the city of Columbus and dump it at the construction site. The truck operators doing the hauling for Anderson were not members of any union. Their employment comprehended the dumping of the gravel at the construction site as a delivery operation and was not in any way implemented with the employment of other workmen on the construction project.
The local union had previously sought to obtain this trucking work from Holt for its members who owned and operated their own trucks but the effort was unsuccessful. The local union, both before and after Anderson had secured the contract from Holt to do the hauling work, sought to persuade Anderson's employees to become members of the union but likewise without success.
On the afternoon of February 9, 1949, Anderson's men began delivering by truck dirt and gravel to the construction site. Later the same day, Pfeiffer informed Holt that since it was not employing union men to do this hauling he decided to banner the job. The next day Pfeiffer stationed a picket at the entrance of the construction project where Anderson's truckers entered and left the premises, which picket carried a large body-size banner bearing in display lettering: 'Anderson does not employ members of Teamsters Local 311 affiliated with the Building Trades Council, A. F. of L.'
Immediately following the placing of the picket and banner, most of the union employees working directly for Barnes and for its various subcontractors quit work. As a result of such work stoppage Barnes ordered Holt, its subcontractor, to stop Anderson and its nonunion truck drivers from delivering further materials to the construction site. The order was given by Holt and Anderson ceased hauling on February 16, 1949. The union employees of Barnes and of his subcontractors then resumed work on the job.
After the hauling was suspended, a meeting attended by Holt, Barnes, Pfeiffer and O'Day was held, at which it was agreed that Holt should employ union truck drivers to do the hauling of the dirt and gravel. Two or three such operators were secured but after an hour or two of work they were stopped by representatives of the Public Utilities Commission on the ground that the union operators did not have permits from such commission and were not qualified to operate the trucks.
On February 21, 1949, after Holt had been unsuccessful in securing union operators, Anderson's nonunion truck drivers resumed the work of hauling and continued work for two days without incident. No hauling was done on February 23, 24 or 25 on account of unfavorable weather. Hauling was resumed, however, on February 28, 1949, and on March 1, 1949, a picket and banner were again placed at the entrance to the construction site, and again most of the union men on the job employed by Barnes and his subcontractors quit work.
After a second conference between Pfeiffer, O'Day and Barnes, Pfeiffer and O'Day requested that an order in writing be sent to Holt to stop Anderson's men from further work, whereupon, under date of March 3, 1949, a telegram was sent to Holt by one Stahl, a representative of Barnes, which was as follows:
'Columbus, Ohio, March 3, 1949
'H. W. Holt & Son
'998 West Mound Street
'Columbus, Ohio
'James I. Barnes Construction Co.
'By Ray Stahl.'
Again Anderson and his men ceased hauling and the union men employed by Barnes and its subcontractors resumed work.
A few days later, Anderson instituted this action. After setting up in his petition the facts substantially as above stated, he prayed that the defendants be enjoined from 'picketing or bannering the site of any building, job or work whereat plaintiff has or shall have delivered building materials * * * for the purpose of preventing plaintiff from making delivery of materials or other commodities to such site.'
Four of the defendants filed answers admitting certain of the allegations of plaintiff's petition with general denials as to the remainder of such allegations, and variously alleging that the granting of an order or orders as prayed for by the plaintiff against the defendants would constitute a deprivation of rights as guaranteed in Articles I, XIII and XIV, Amendments, U. S. Constitution, and Sections 6 and 11, Article I, Ohio Constitution.
At the trial, Arthur Stray, superintendent of construction for Barnes, testified that on the day before the banner was posted O'Day called him by telephone and asked him if Anderson was hauling. Stray answered, 'yes,' whereupon O'Day said there 'would be a banner up in the morning' and 'well, if they want a showdown we will give it to them.' O'Day admitted that he had the telephone conversation with Stray but denied the statement as to showdown and denied that he said the banner would be posted, because 'I cannot banner the job, that is up to the locals.'
Holt testified that on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Portage Cnty. Educators Ass'n for Developmental Disabilities – Unit B v. State Emp't Relations Bd.
...based on the picketer's conduct and objective. {¶45} For instance, the Seventh District relied on the Ohio Supreme Court case of W.E. Anderson Sons for its statement that Ohio common law enjoined the secondary picketing of neutrals. However, the definition of a prohibited "secondary boycott......
-
Harrison Hills Teachers Ass'n v. State Emp't Relations Bd.
...free speech depended on the lawful exercise of the right. W.E. Anderson Sons Co. v. Local Union No. 311, Internatl. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America, 156 Ohio St. 541, 561–562, 104 N.E.2d 22 (1952) (reviewing United States Supreme Court cases up to that point)......
-
Transnational Insurance Company v. Rosenlund
...254 U.S. 443, 41 S.Ct. 172, 65 L.Ed. 349 (1921); Paramount Enterprises v. Mitchell, supra, and W. E. Anderson & Sons Co. v. Local Union No. 311, etc., 156 Ohio St. 541, 104 N.E.2d 22, 32 (1952). It seems that the Irish, as in many other fields, produced the character for whom the term "Boyc......
-
C. Comella, Inc. v. United Farm Workers Organizing Committee
...Bhd. of Electrical Workers v. N.L.R.B. (1951), 341 U.S. 694, 71 S.Ct. 954, 95 L.Ed. 1299; W. E. Anderson Sons Co. v. Local 311, Teamsters (1952), 156 Ohio St. 541, 104 N.E.2d 22; Ridge Mfg. Co. v. Electrical Workers Local 735 (1947), Ohio Com.Pl., 36 Ohio Op. 206, 77 N.E.2d There will be ad......
-
Ohio. Practice Text
...Oliver v. A.C.E. Trans. Co., 147 N.E.2d 856 (Ohio 1958). 125. See W.E. Anderson Sons Co. v. Int’l Bhd. Teamsters Local Union No. 311, 104 N.E.2d 22 (Ohio 1952). Ohio 38-19 14.a.7. Insurance Early Ohio court cases held that the insurance sector was not subject to the Valentine Act because in......