Case Title: MISS. GULF COAST BLDG. v. Brown & Root, Inc.

Citation: 417 So. 2d 564

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1982-07-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
417 So. 2d 564 (1982) MISSISSIPPI GULF COAST BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, et al. v. BROWN & ROOT, INC. No. 53323. Supreme Court of Mississippi. July 28, 1982. *565 Charles T. Sykes, Jr., Gulfport, for appellants. Sherman Muths, Jr., Gulfport, William A. Brown, William L. Bedman, Powell, Wilson, Brown & Maverick, Houston, Tex., Frederick A. Kullman, E. Frederick Preis, Jr., Kullman, Lang, Inman & Bee, New Orleans, La., M. Curtiss McKee, Frank M. Holbrook, Fuselier, Ott, McKee & Moeller, Jackson, Wren Way, Way & Field, Vicksburg, for appellee. Before SUGG, HAWKINS and PRATHER, JJ. SUGG, Presiding Justice, for the Court: On February 11, 1981 appellants began picketing at Gate 2 of the Jack Watson Plant of the Mississippi Power Company where appellee was employed to perform repair work. Gate No. 2 is the contractors' entrance to the Jack Watson Plant off Lorraine Road and was used by other contractors engaged in work at the plant. On February 13, 1981 Chancellor Jason H. Floyd, Jr. ordered an injunction against appellants without notice enjoining appellants from: After a final hearing on March 18, 1981 the Chancellor entered a decree making the injunction permanent with some modification.[1] On appeal appellants contend, (1) that the Chancery Court of Harrison County did not have jurisdiction to issue the injunction because its jurisdiction had been pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act and, (2) that the court erred in granting an injunction on the evidence shown by the record. The United States Supreme Court has held enactment of Federal Labor laws did not divest state courts of the authority to enjoin mass picketing, violence, and overt acts of violence. In the case of United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 351 U.S. 266, 76 S. Ct. 794, 100 L. Ed. 1162 (1956), the Court stated: The United States Supreme Court has not receded from the position stated above. For example, in Sears Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180, 204, 98 S. Ct. 1745, 1761, 56 L. Ed. 2d 209, 229 (1978) the Court noted that it had, "Held that state jurisdiction to enforce its law prohibiting violence, defamation, the intentional infliction of emotional distress or obstruction or access to property is not pre-empted by the N.L.R.A.," citing the following cases: Youngdahl v. Rainfair, Inc., 355 U.S. 131, 78 S. Ct. 206, 2 L. Ed. 2d 151; Construction Workers v. Laburnum, 347 U.S. 656, 74 S. Ct. 833, 98 L. Ed. 1025; Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53, 86 S. Ct. 657, 15 L. Ed. 2d 582; Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U.S. 290, 97 S. Ct. 1056, 51 L. Ed. 2d 338; Automobile Workers v. Russell, 356 U.S. 634, 78 S. Ct. 932, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1030. It is equally well established that the States may not enjoin peaceful picketing when done in connection with a labor dispute. San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S. Ct. 773, 3 L. Ed. 2d 775 (1959). The injunction in this case did not ban peaceful picketing, but regulated the *567 picketing to insure that it would be peaceful. We therefore hold that appellants' first assignment of error is not well taken. There was testimony about mass picketing which commenced at Gate No. 2 of the Jack Watson Plant on Wednesday, February 11, 1981. A number of appellee's employees testified that when they arrived at the plant, the picketers were congregating at the entrance preventing any ingress. In the words of some of the witnesses the picketers were "massed up shoulder to shoulder" and would not let the appellee's employees enter. The number of picketers on February 11 were estimated by various witnesses at approximately 50-75, 60-70, 75, 75-100. The automobiles of at least five of appellee's employees were attacked and damaged by the picketers. Windows were broken out of four automobiles. One employee's eye was injured when a piece of glass from a broken window struck his eye. One of the employees testified that as he tried to report to work on February 13 the picketers shouted obscenities and threw a 10-15 pound block of concrete through one of the windows of his car. The automobile of another employee of appellee was damaged and when it was "hit and kicked by something on the right rear twice and it was scratched up in a couple of places and the gas lid was bent in." A photographer of appellee testified that he was threatened as he attempted to take photographs of the picketing activity by a man who picked up a rock and made a visible sign that he intended to throw the rock at the photographer. Large spikes, nails or tacks had been attached to flat plates and placed throughout the parking lot and at the approaches to Gate 2. As a result about 50 automobiles had flat tires, including vehicles from the Sheriff's Department. Major Jerry Cooper, Chief of Patrol of the Harrison County Sheriff's Department, corroborated the other witnesses description of the explosive situation. He testified that the picketers were shouting revolting and reviling language directed to the people trying to go to work and that the situation was getting out of control. He stated that appellee's employees had been provoked by damage to their automobiles and threatened to retaliate with personal violence. Appellants argue that it was necessary for appellees to show that the pickets engaged in serious violence. Serious violence is not an essential element to the granting of an injunction involving picketing, the Supreme Court has described the conduct which the state has jurisdiction to regulate as "intimidation and threats of violence." San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 248, 79 S. Ct. 773, 781, 3 L. Ed. 2d 775, 784 (1959). The Court recognized in Youngblood v. Rainfair, supra, that some activities not involving overt acts of violence are as potentially explosive as physical acts. The Court stated: In our opinion the Chancellor was faced with a highly volatile situation which might erupt into violence at any time and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the issuance of the injunction. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER, P.J., and BROOM, ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING, HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE and PRATHER, JJ., concur. [1] The modification reduced the number of pickets permitted from four to two, reduced the distance in item 2 from 200 yards to 100 yards, and reduced the distance in item 6 from 200 yards to 200 feet.