Case Name: James M. CASIDA et al., Petitioners, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, and Local 351, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1964-07-29
Citations: 383 S.W.2d 571
Docket Number: No. A-10153
Parties: James M. CASIDA et al., Petitioners, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, and Local 351, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 383
Pages: 571–571

Head Matter:
James M. CASIDA et al., Petitioners, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, and Local 351, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Respondents.
No. A-10153.
Supreme Court of Texas.
July 29, 1964.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 11, 1964.
Black & Stayton, Austin, Albert Smith, Lubbock, H. M. Hood, Borger, W. L. McConnell, Amarillo, Jack Hood, Borger, Robert Howard, Lubbock, for petitioners.
Mullinax, Wells, Morris & Mauzy, Dallas, Woll, Mayer & St. Antonine, Washington, D. G, for International Union of Operating Engineers.
Arthur Mitchell, Sam Houston Clinton, Jr., Austin, for Local No. 351, International Union of Operating Engineers.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is a suit by twenty-eight former members of a labor union against their union. The trial court gave judgment on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed such judgment, holding that the area of conduct in question was pre-empted from state law by federal legislation. 376 S.W.2d 814.
We refuse to grant this application for writ of error solely on the ground that the conduct in question is arguably subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. See Local 100, United Association of Journeymen v. Borden, 373 U.S. 690, 83 S.Ct. 1423, 10 L.Ed.2d 638 (1963); San Diego Building Trades Council, etc. v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775; Local No. 207, Intern. Ass'n, etc., Iron Workers Union v. Perko, 373 U.S. 701, 83 S.Ct. 1429, 10 L.Ed.2d 646. Compare International Association of Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U.S. 617, 78 S.Ct. 923, 2 L.Ed.2d 1018. Hence, the application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.