Youngdahl Cio v. Rainfair

Decision Date09 December 1957
Docket NumberNo. 11,11
Citation2 L.Ed.2d 151,78 S.Ct. 206,355 U.S. 131
PartiesJames E. YOUNGDAHL, W. Chandler, Ruth Ralph, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, et al., Petitioners, v. RAINFAIR, Inc
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. William J. Isaacson, for petitioners.

Mr. J. L. Shaver, Sr., Wynne, Ark., for respondent.

Mr. Justice BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issues here are whether, under the circumstances of this case, a state court may enjoin strikers and union representatives from (1) 'threatening, intimidating or coercing any of the officers, agents or employees of (the employer) at any place,' and also 'from obstructing, or attempting to obstruct the free use of the streets adjacent to (the employer's) place of business, and the free ingress and egress to and from (the employer's) property,' and (2) all 'picketing or patrolling' of the employer's premises. For reasons hereafter stated, we conclude that the state court may lawfully enjoin conduct of substantially the first category but not of the second.

Most of the material facts are uncontroverted. In 1955, respondent, Rainfair, Inc., was a Wisconsin corporation with headquarters in Racine, Wisconsin. It owned and operated a plant in Wynne, Arkansas, an essentially rural community of about 4,000 inhabitants. About 100 women and seven men were there employed in the manufacture of men's slacks which were shipped in interstate commerce. None of the employees were members of a labor union but many had signed applications to join the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, which is one of the petitioners.

Apparently in an effort to compel the employer to recognize the union as the bargaining agent of the employees, 29 of the employees did not report for work on May 2, 1955. A picket line was established on the street in front of the plant. Strike headquarters were maintained across the street from the plant entrance. Nearly all of the strikers were women. Their number varied from eight to 37. All was not quiet, however. On one occasion nails were strewn over the company's parking lot and, about a week later, the whole lot was 'seeded' with roofing tacks. Tacks were also scattered in the driveway of the plant manager's home and on the driveways of 12 of the nonstriking women employees. One of the pickets told the plant manager that she would 'wipe the sidewalk' with him and send him back to Wisconsin because he 'was nothing but trash.' The plant manager was followed by the strikers each time he left the plant; he also was harassed at night by occasional shouting at his home and by numerous anonymous telephone calls.

Immediately after the strike was called, respondent, by registered mail, informed each of the strikers that, if they did not return to work within a few days, the company would assume that those not returning had quit there jobs. Only three returned. Thirteen new employees were hired. The strike ended on May 19, the pickets were withdrawn and the strikers applied for reinstatement. Respondent, however, declined to arrange for immediate reinstatement. On June 17, the strikers voted to re-establish the picket line on Monday, June 20.1 The purpose was to protest against respondent's failure to recognize the union and its refusal to reinstate the employees who had applied for reinstatement in May.

Shortly after midnight, on the morning of June 20, two women strikers deliberately drove a sharp instrument into two tires of a car owned by the daughter of one of the nonstriking women employees.2 At about 5:15 a.m. the police were summoned to the plant where they found a five-foot black snake inside the plant beneath a broken window. At about 6 a.m. picketing was resumed.3 Although the union posted notices warning the strikers against committing acts of violence, a union representative later was sufficiently concerned to ask the police to have someone regularly on duty at the entrance to the plant. The evidence shows that the tension was in large part caused by the enormous amount of abusive language hurled by the strikers at the company employees. The Supreme Court of Arkansas later summarized this as follows:

'As the employees would go to and from work at the plant, or go to lunch, or take a recess, the strikers would congregate along the west edge of their lot and sometimes in Rowena Street and engage in loud and offensive name calling, singing or shouting directed at the workers. They would call the workers 'scabs,' 'dirty scabs,' 'fat scabs,' 'yellow scabs,' 'crazy scabs,' 'cotton patch scabs,' 'pony tailed scabs,' 'fuzzy headed scabs,' 'fools,' 'cotton picking fools,' and other similar names. This took place every time an employee left or entered the plant. It was done by the strikers individually, in couples or by the entire group and in a loud and boisterous manner. One witness described it as 'just bedlam' when more than a dozen joined in the shouting. Particular names or remarks were reserved for individual workers. One pregnant worker was greeted with, 'Get the hot water ready,' or, 'I am coming to make another payment on the baby, call Dr. Beaton,' or, 'Why, you can work another hour until you go to the delivery room.' This worker and another drove to a filling station for gasoline when two of the strikers drove up and told the attendant not to wait on 'these scabs' before he waited on the strikers.

'One worker said the strikers always called her 'fat scab,' and that individual pickets and strikers made fun of her clothing and asked her if 'Pete,' the plant manager, still liked her 'low-cut dresses and earrings.' This made the employee so angry she invited the picket to come over and 'make it some of her business.' * * *

'The strikers sang songs with improvised lyrics to the tune of certain popular ballads and religious and Union songs. 'When the Saints Go Marching In' became 'When the Scabs Go Marching In' and the ballad, 'Davy Crockett,' began, 'Born in a cotton patch in Arkansas, the greenest gals we ever saw * * *.'

'The women pickets would stand in the street or sit near the plant and shout ugly names, stick out their tongues, hold their noses and make a variety of indecent gestures while pointing at the workers in the plant. Several workers testified the continuous name calling and boisterous conduct of the strikers made them afraid, angry, ill or nervous and had an adverse effect on their ability to properly do their work. Some of the workers would talk back to the strikers while others remained silent. The Chief of Police of Wynne testified there was more tension during the second picketing than the first and that he was fearful there was going to be trouble during the second picketing and so informed Union staff members. One staff member called him once when trouble seemed imminent and wanted to 'go on record' as having requested the presence of the officer.' 226 Ark. 80, 83—84, 288 S.W.2d 589, 591.

On June 24, respondent filed a complaint in the local Chancery Court. It described the conduct of the strikers and alleged that such conduct amounted to 'unlawful acts * * * for the unlawful purpose of intimidating and coercing' respondent's employees into joining the union, that respondent had no adequate remedy at law and that it was suffering irreparable damage from such conduct. The court acted upon the complaint and the testimony of the plant manager and issued a temporary injunction. After full hearing, it made the injunction permanent on September 15. The trial court's findings included the following statement:

'That the defendants, in picketing the plaintiff's plant, have resorted to violence, coercion and intimidation, and such other unlawful conduct as was calculated to cause a breach of the peace, and that the defendants have unlawfully abused the right to peaceably picket, as granted to them by the laws of this state and the Federal Constitution, and that said defendants should be permanently enjoined from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
180 cases
  • Pittsburg Unified School Dist. v. California School Employees Assn.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 15, 1985 question was arguably prohibited, and therefore may arguably be remedied, under the Act. (See, e.g., Youngdahl v. Rainfair, Inc. (1957) 355 U.S. 131, 78 S.Ct. 206, 2 L.Ed.2d 151; Auto Workers v. Wisconsin Board (1956) 351 U.S. 266, 274, 76 S.Ct. 794, 799, 100 L.Ed. 1162; Bertuccio v. Sup......
  • San Diego Teachers Assn. v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1979
    ...290, 97 S.Ct. 1056, 51 L.Ed.2d 338 (damages action for union's intentional infliction of mental distress); Youngdahl v. Rainfair, Inc. (1957) 355 U.S. 131, 78 S.Ct. 206, 2 L.Ed.2d 151 (injunction against pickets' That argument erroneously presupposes a disparity between public and PERB inte......
  • State v. Local 1115 Joint Bd., Nursing Home and Hospital Emp. Division
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 14, 1977 local feeling and responsibility'. Accordingly, state courts may enjoin picketing using violent means (Youngdahl v. Rainfair, Inc., 355 U.S. 131, 138, 78 S.Ct. 206, 2 L.Ed.2d 151; Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Term. Co., 394 U.S. 369, 386, 89 S.Ct. 1109, 22 L.Ed. 344). As ......
  • City Line Open Hearth, Inc. v. Hotel, Motel and Club Emp. Union Local No. 568, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1964
    ... ... Millmen's Union Local 2020 v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, ... 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775; Youngdahl v. Rainfair, ... Inc., 355 U.S. 131, 78 S.Ct. 206, 2 L.Ed.2d 151; ... United Automobile Aircraft and Agr. Implement Workers of ... America v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Rewriting Near v. Minnesota: Creating a Complete Definition of Prior Restraint - Michael I. Meyerson
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 52-3, March 2001
    • Invalid date
    ...bounds."). 212. Milk Wagon Drivers, 312 U.S. at 293-94, 296; Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 923-24; Youngdahl v. Rainfair, Inc., 355 U.S. 131, 140 (1957) (striking down injunction against peaceful picketing when violence was scattered in time). 213. 402 U.S. 415 (1971). 214. Id. at 419. 21......
  • Supreme Court Behavior and Civil Rights
    • United States
    • Sage Political Research Quarterly No. 13-2, June 1960
    • June 1, 1960
    ...Green v. U.S. (2), 356U.S. 165 (1958); Rathbun v. U.S., 355 U.S. 107 (1957); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957); Youngdahl v. Rainfair, 355 U.S. 131 (1957); Sacher v. U.S., 356 U.S. 576 Ashdown v. Utah, 357 U.S. 426 (1958); Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371 (1958);N.A.A.C.P. v. Patterson,......

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