Title: Romero v. JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, ETC.

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

321 P.2d 628 (1958) 63 N.M. 443 Bernabe ROMERO, d/b/a De Vargas Barber Shop, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIR DRESSERS, COSMETOLOGISTS AND PROPRIETORS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 501, A.F. OF L.-C.I.O., D.C. Long, O. A. Miller and John Carrillo, Defendants-Appellees. No. 6259. Supreme Court of New Mexico. January 13, 1958. Dean S. Zinn, Santa Fe, for appellant. Edwin L. Felter, Sante Fe, for appellees. COMPTON, Justice. The decisive question on appeal is whether an organizational controversy is a labor dispute within the meaning of § 1, C. 195, L. 1939, § 59-2-1, 1953 Comp., limiting the jurisdiction of the courts in labor disputes. The pertinent provision of the section reads: Appellant, plaintiff below, sought to enjoin appellees from picketing his place of business and to recover damages allegedly caused thereby. From an order denying the injunction and dismissing the complaint, appellant brings his appeal. Appellant, secretary to New Mexico State Board of Barbers, is a barber himself and is engaged in operating the De Vargas Barber Shop in Santa Fe. Appellee, Journeymen Barbers, etc., is an unincorporated labor union affiliated with International Union of America. Appellee Long is a representative of International Union and the remaining appellees are officers of its local union. Appellees, in an organizational drive for membership in New Mexico, contacted appellant on several occasions for the purpose of recruiting members, particularly appellant and his four employees. Previously appellant had entered into an agreement with owners or proprietors of other barber shops in the city to the effect that he would not join appellee union, at least without first advising them of his proposed action. So, he and his employees steadfastly refused to join and so advised appellee Long. Thereupon, appellant's shop became the focal point for picketing. A picket line was established in front of appellant's shop. And picketing was continued for a total of 17 days, but no more than one picket patrolled at a time. There were no threats nor violence employed to coerce appellant or his employees into joining the union. The free use of the sidewalk in front of the shop was never obstructed, nor was the free ingress and egress to and from his shop. There were no flaring of tempers at any time. Actually, the pickets on several occasions spent part of their time just visiting with appellant and his employees. While the trial court found the picketing was conducted in a lawful manner, the court found further that the facts presented a labor dispute. Appellant frankly admits that the picketing was peaceful in all respects; nevertheless, he contends (a) that no labor dispute existed, and, (b) that the picketing was unlawful since its objective was to coerce him and his employees into joining the union. These contentions cannot be sustained. The controversy compelled the conclusion reached by the trial court, otherwise, employers and employees by mutual action might well circumvent unionization under any and all conditions. The right to unionize cannot be brushed off in such manner. While our act is silent as to what constitutes a labor dispute, it is a counterpart of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, C. 90, § 13, 47 Stat. 73, U.S.C.A. Title 29, § 113, which defines the term as follows: We see, therefore, that labor disputes are not necessarily limited to disputes between employer and employees, but the term embraces organizational disputes as well. The cases, both state and federal, are in accord. Pomonis v. Hotel, Restaurant & Bartenders Union No. 716, 56 N.M. 56, 239 P.2d 1003; Garner v. Teamsters Union, etc., 373 Pa. 19, 94 A.2d 893; 346 U.S. 485, 74 S. Ct. 161, 98 L. Ed. 228; A.F. of L. v. Swing, (Ill.) 312 U.S. 321, 61 S. Ct. 568, 85 L. Ed. 855; American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184, 42 S. Ct. 72, 66 L. Ed. 189; New Negro Alliance v. *630 Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552, 58 S. Ct. 703, 82 L. Ed. 1012. But picketing in an unlawful manner, or for an unlawful objective, is not constitutionally protected, even though there may exist at the moment a labor dispute. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v. Vogt, Inc., 354 U.S. 284, 77 S. Ct. 1166, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1347; Baldwin v. Arizona Flame Restaurant, etc., 82 Ariz. 385, 313 P.2d 759, decided June 29, 1957; Lee Marks Mfg. Co. v. Teamsters Local 596, Pa.Ct. of Com. Pleas, Dec.Term, 1955; Lauf v. E.G. Skinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323, 58 S. Ct. 578, 82 L. Ed. 872; J. Radley Metzger Co. v. Fay, 4 A.D.2d 436, 166 N.Y.S.2d 87. In Garner v. Teamsters Union, etc. supra [373 Pa. 19, 94 A.2d 895], the court held: In A.F. of L. v. Swing, supra [312 U.S. 321, 61 S. Ct. 570], the court held: In Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., supra [303 U.S. 552, 58 S. Ct. 706], the Supreme Court had this to say: At the oral arguments appellant leaned heavily on J. Radley Metzger Co. v. Fay, supra, to sustain his argument that the picketing was unlawful, hence enjoinable. We fail to see where the case lends any material assistance. The presence of threats and violence was the determining factor of the case. In the main it stands for the proposition that state courts may enjoin picketing for unlawful objectives or picketing conducted in an unlawful manner. See also the recent case Youngdahl v. Rainfair, Inc., 78 S. Ct. 206, opinion by Justice Burton, to the same effect. The judgment will be affirmed and it is so ordered. LUJAN, C.J., and McGHEE and KIKER, JJ., concur. SADLER, J., not participating.