Case Name: Smith v. Arkansas Motor Freight Lines, Inc.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1949-02-07
Citations: 214 Ark. 553
Docket Number: 4-8716
Parties: Smith v. Arkansas Motor Freight Lines, Inc.
Judges: Justices FraNk GL Smith and Holt dissent.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 214
Pages: 553–556

Head Matter:
Smith v. Arkansas Motor Freight Lines, Inc.
4-8716
217 S. W. 2d 249
Opinion delivered February 7, 1949.
T. J. Gentry, for appellant.
Louis TarlowsM, for appellee.

Opinion:
George Eose Smith, J.
In 1946 the appellee entered into a contract with Local No. 278 of the Teamsters Union, governing wages, working conditions and the like. One provision of the agreement was that the appellee might employ persons other than union members, but after thirty days such employees were to become and remain members of the union.
This action was filed by the president and secretary of the union, an unincorporated association, on behalf of themselves and its other members. The complaint alleged that the appellee had violated its contract by retaining non-union employees for more than thirty days. The prayer was for specific performance and for an injunction against the continued employment of persons not belonging to the union. Appellee demurred to the complaint on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter, that the plaintiffs lacked capacity to sue, that there was a defect of parties plain tiff, and that no caiise of action was stated. The trial court sustained the demurrer on the express ground that appellants lacked capacity to bring the suit, the other questions not being decided. Appellants stood upon their pleading and appeal from an order dismissing their complaint.
We think the union officials could properly bring a representative action, without joining all members of the organization. Such a suit is authorized when the parties are numerous and it is impractical to bring all before the court. Ark. Stats. (1947) § 27-809. While we have not passed upon this particular question, it is generally held that suits by or against unincorporated labor unions may be cast in representative form. O'Jay Spread Co. v. Hicks, 185 Ga. 507, 195 S. E. 564; Carpenters' Union v. Citizens' Committee, 333 Ill. 225, 164 N. E. 393, 63 A. L. R. 157; A. F. of L. v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 33 App. D. C. 83, 32 L. R. A., N. S. 748, appeal dismissed, 219 U. S. 581, 31 S. Ct. 472, 55 L. Ed. 345. Here the complaint, construed liberally on demurrer, sufficiently asserted that the representative nature of the action was. due to the fact that the union members were too numerous to be joined.
The appellee took a cross appeal from the decision in its favor and argues that a contract for personal services will not be specifically enforced. A sufficient answer would be that appellants also ask for an injunction to enforce appellee's negative covenant against the retention of non-union employees, and injunction is the normal means of enforcing such a covenant. Walsh on Equity, § 67. But the chancellor sustained the demurrer only on the basis of capacity to sue, and we limit our ruling to that question. As the parties have not discussed the validity of the contract in view of Amendment 34 to the Arkansas Constitution, we express no opinion on that point.
The chancellor's ruling that appellants lack the capacity.to maintain this action is reversed and the cause is remanded for further consideration.
Justices FraNk GL Smith and Holt dissent.
Chief Justice Griffin Smith and Justice McFaddiN concur.