Title: People v. Federal Tool & Plastics
Citation: 344 N.E.2d 1, 62 Ill. 2d 549
Docket Number: 47220
State: Illinois
Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court
Date: September 26, 1975

62 Ill. 2d 549 (1975)
344 N.E.2d 1
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL TOOL AND PLASTICS, Division of V.C.A., Appellee.
No. 47220.

Supreme Court of Illinois.
Opinion filed September 26, 1975.
*550 William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield (George H. Klumpner, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for the People.
Perlman, Schulman and Bell, of Chicago (Errol Zavett, of counsel), for appellee.
Judgment affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER delivered the opinion of the court:
This case involves the validity of the following statute:
A complaint filed in the circuit court of Cook County charged the defendant, Federal Tool and Plastics, Division of V.C.A., with a violation of the statute, a petty offense punishable by a fine of not more than $300. Each day such advertising appears is deemed a separate offense. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 48, par. 2d.
The defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds that: (1) the complaint failed to state an offense; (2) the statute was preempted by Federal law; (3) the statute violated both State and Federal constitutional guarantees of free speech, due process and equal protection; and (4) the statute was selectively enforced. The trial court held that the complaint was not defective but that the statute was unconstitutional because it was preempted by Federal law; it did not, therefore, consider the third and fourth grounds advanced by the defendant.
The State has appealed directly pursuant to Rule 603 (50 Ill.2d R. 603). It challenges the trial court's determination that the statute is preempted. The defendant rebuts *551 that argument and in addition renews its contention that the statute violates both the State and Federal constitutional guarantees of free speech and equal protection. Because of our disposition of the preemption question, we do not reach the free speech and equal protection issues.
The parties agree that the starting point in the analysis of any labor law preemption question is the rule established in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon (1959), 359 U.S. 236, 3 L. Ed. 2d 775, 79 S. Ct. 773. Although the rule in Garmon has been the subject of much criticism, it was reaffirmed in Amalgamated Association of Street Employees v. Lockridge (1971), 403 U.S. 274, 29 L. Ed. 2d 473, 91 S. Ct. 1909, and remains the law today. (See, e.g., Bryson, A Matter of Wooden Logic: Labor Law Preemption and Individual Rights, 51 Tex. L. Rev. 1037 (1973); Lesnick, Preemption Reconsidered: The Apparent Reaffirmation of Garmon, 72 Colum. L. Rev. 469 (1972).) In Garmon, the court stated:
*552 Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (29 U.S.C. sec. 157) covers labor activities which are protected against employer interference, and section 8 (29 U.S.C. sec. 158) covers prohibited employer and employee unfair labor practices. We believe it is unnecessary to decide whether the activity regulated by the statute before us is arguably subject to section 7 or to section 8 of the NLRA because we believe the statute is preempted even if the activity is neither protected nor prohibited.
In Teamsters Local No. 20 v. Morton (1964), 377 U.S. 252, 12 L. Ed. 2d 280, 84 S. Ct. 1253, the Supreme Court held that a State law may be preempted even though it involves an activity not arguably protected or prohibited by section 7 or section 8. In Morton, a union persuaded the management of one of a struck employer's customers to refrain from doing business with the employer during a strike. The Federal district court held that this form of secondary pressure was a permissible activity under Federal law but that the activity violated the common law of Ohio which prohibited "`making direct appeals to a struck employer's customers or suppliers to stop doing business with the struck employer.'" (377 U.S. 252, 255, 12 L. Ed. 2d 280, 283.) The Supreme Court agreed that this activity was not within the Garmon rule and that the activity was permissible under Federal law. Congress had, in fact, considered whether soliciting the support of a customer should be prohibited and had declined to so prohibit solicitation. (377 U.S. 252, 258, 259, 12 L. Ed. 2d 280, 285, 286.) The court stated that the resolution of the preemption question "ultimately depends upon whether the application of state law in this kind of case would operate to frustrate the purpose of the federal legislation." (377 U.S. 252, 258, 12 L. Ed. 2d 280, 285.) The court held that the Ohio common law was preempted by Federal labor law, stating:
The question in the present case is not free from *554 doubt. The General Assembly may have designed the statute to avoid violence and to protect public peace and order. It may have considered that one who fails to disclose the fact that a strike is in progress when advertising for new employees violates the principle that should govern "truth in advertising." It could also have determined that the crossing of the picket line by newly employed strike breakers might not only be the cause of violence, but might subject those persons, their children and their families to abuse and obloquy. These considerations could be regarded as justifying the enactment of the present statute; 18 other States have statutes virtually identical to the statute in question here. See CCH-Labor L. State Rptr. par. 40,358.
Nevertheless, we believe that the reasoning of the Morton case requires us to hold that the statute has been preempted by Federal labor law. An employer has a right to hire replacements for striking employees (NLRB v. Mackay Radio &amp; Telegraph Co. (1937), 304 U.S. 333, 82 L. Ed. 1381, 58 S. Ct. 904; H &amp; E Binch Co. Plant of Native Laces v. NLRB (2d Cir.1972), 456 F. 2d 357), and that right constitutes an important economic weapon left to the employer by Congress when it struck the balance of power between labor and management. The statute requires that notice that a strike is in progress be included in any advertisement for employees, and thus encumbers the employer's right to hire employees with a requirement that he publicize the existence of the strike. This requirement, enforceable by a criminal sanction, impairs the balance struck by Congress.
The Congress has specifically considered whether prospective employees should be informed that a strike is in progress. The Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. secs. 49-49k), which was enacted to promote and develop a national system of employment agencies, provides that in carrying out the provisions of the Act, the Secretary of Labor is "authorized and directed to provide for the giving *555 of notice of strikes or lockouts to applicants before they are referred to employment." (29 U.S.C. sec. 49j.) The Congress did not, however, impose a requirement that an employer include notice of a strike in an advertisement for replacement employees.
We believe that Professor Archibald Cox has accurately described the preemption test which is emerging from Morton. He stated:
The statute before us impinges "on the area of labor combat designed to be free." (377 U.S. 252, 260, 12 L. Ed. 2d 280, 286.) It is not applicable to the general public, and it is operative only during an acute labor dispute. Although it was probably motivated by a desire to protect prospective employees from unwittingly becoming involved in a potentially hostile situation, the statute nevertheless upsets the balance of power struck by Congress. The judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.