Opinion ID: 2221192
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court err in refusing the union's requested instruction?

Text: Appellant claims that the trial court should have given this instruction which it requested: You are further instructed that under the laws of the United States the Union and Twin City Construction Company could lawfully enter into collective bargaining agreements which contained a clause commonly known as non-discriminatory hiring hall provisions. You are further instructed as a matter of law that the Union and Twin City Construction Company had, in fact, entered into such agreement. Under the law the Union was privileged and entitled to talk to Twin City Construction Company and to require the company to comply with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. If you find that the Union was acting to enforce the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement and was not acting pursuant to any other agreement between it and the Twin City Construction Company you must find for Defendant. We find the Instructions as a whole and particularly Instructions No. 11 and 18 [7] adequately covered the pertinent law. From the instructions counsel could, and did, fully argue the issue.