Case Name: Colorado State Council of Carpenters, et al. v. District Court of Larimer County, et al.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1964-05-25
Citations: 155 Colo. 54
Docket Number: No. 21207
Parties: Colorado State Council of Carpenters, et al. v. District Court of Larimer County, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 54–64

Head Matter:
No. 21207.
Colorado State Council of Carpenters, et al. v. District Court of Larimer County, et al.
(392 P.2d 601)
Decided May 25, 1964.
Rehearing denied June 15, 1964.
Mr. Wayne D. Williams, Mr. Howard E. Erickson, for petitioners.
Messrs. Wagner and Wyers, for respondents.
En Banc.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Moore
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an original proceeding in which the petitioners sought the issuance of a rule directed to the respondents commanding that they show cause why an injunction entered by the respondent district court should not be held null and void for lack of jurisdiction to enter the same. The rule was issued as requested and respondents have filed their answer.
It appears from the documents presented to this Court that the petitioners had made a request of the Van Winkle Construction Company to sign a collective bargaining agreement but that the Company refused; that said Company was performing a construction contract with the City of Fort Collins under which it was obligated to build a water reservoir with a capacity of fifteen million gallons at a cost of approximately $460,000.00; that upon the failure of the Company to sign the tendered contract, petitioners caused pickets to be placed near the entrance to the work project, these pickets displaying placards which stated that the Company "does not have collective bargaining agreement with Carpenters' Local No. 1340"; and it further appears that Van Winkle Construction Company did not make any application to the National Labor Relations Board in connection with the dispute with petitioners. The Company filed an action in the district court of Larimer County in which it sought an injunction against the aforesaid picketing and further sought damages incurred by the Company, resulting from the events following the picketing of the work project. In the district court action the petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of the court to enter an injunction. The trial court overruled the objections made to its jurisdiction in the premises, and following a hearing entered a preliminary injunction as prayed for by the Company. Thereafter this original proceeding was filed in this Court.
We have read the briefs which have been filed and the cases contained therein. We hold that the district court of Larimer County was without jurisdiction to enter the temporary injunction and that the rule heretofore issued should be and hereby is made absolute. We think it sufficient to say in justification of this decision that the matters in controversy are practically the same as those present in Building Construction Trades Council v. American Builders, Inc., 139 Colo. 236, 337 P.2d 953, in which it was held that the state courts have no jurisdiction to enjoin peaceful picketing in the absence of a showing that the National Labor Relations Board has declined to accept jurisdiction over the controversy. To like effect are two recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, namely, Local No. 438, Construction and General Laborers' Union v. Curry, 371 U.S. 542, 83 S. Ct. 531, 9 L. Ed. 2d 514 (1963); and Retail Clerks International Association v. Schermerhorn, 375 U.S. 98, 84 S. Ct. 219, 11 L. Ed. 2d 179, decided December 2, 1963. From the opinion in the case first above mentioned we quote the following:
"The allegations of the complaint, as well as the findings of the Georgia Supreme Court made out at least an arguable violation of § 8 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b). Consequently, the state court had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction or to adjudicate this controversy, which lay within the exclusive powers of the National Labor Relations Board. Plumbers Union v. Door County, 359 U.S. 354, 359 (37 LC [65, 403]; San Diego Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 244-245 (37 LC [65, 367]; Hotel Employees Union v. Sax Enterprises, Inc., 358 U.S. 270 (36 LC [65, 145]; Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U.S. 468, 478, 481 (27 LC [67, 064]; Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U.S. 485, 489-491 (24 LC [68, 020], Nor is the jurisdiction of the Georgia courts sustainable, as respondents urge, by reason of the Georgia right-to-work law and by § 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 164(b). This precise contention has been previously considered and rejected by this Court. Local Union 429 v. Farnsworth and Chambers Co., 353 U.S. 969 (32 LC [70, 724] reversing 201 Tenn. 329, 299 S.W.2d 8. The Georgia Supreme Court clearly exceeded its power in authorizing the issuance of a temporary injunction." (46 Labor Cases (CCH) P. 63207).
The rule heretofore issued is made absolute and the temporary injunction by the district court of Larimer County in Civil Action No. 14852 is vacated and held for naught.
Mr. Justice Hall dissents.