Opinion ID: 1983937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exception for Violation of 29 U.S. C.A. 158(b)(4).

Text: Plaintiffs next insist they are entitled to maintain this action because the injury sustained resulted from a violation of 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b)(4). We find no merit to this argument. The section permits state courts to take jurisdiction of such disputes only when the strike involved is for certain specified purposes or objects. It is aimed principally against secondary boycotts. The allegations of plaintiffs' petition do not bring them within § 158(b)(4). V. We hold the plaintiffs have failed to establish their right to maintain this action under any of the exceptions urged. We must therefore defer to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. VI. One other matter remains for disposition. Plaintiffs assert that in any event the trial court committed reversible error by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing before ruling on their motion to dismiss. See Langrehr v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 236 N.W.2d 339, 343 (Iowa 1975). That case, however is distinguishable from the present one. Langrehr turned on the existence of a specific factwhether the volume of plaintiff's out-of-state purchases exceeded $50,000. In the present case we are ruling only on the legal consequences of plaintiffs' petition, the allegations of which we accept as true for present purposes. In summary we hold that the plaintiffs' petition states an arguably unfair labor practice. We find further that plaintiffs have failed to establish they come within any of the exceptions to the rule that such controversies must be submitted first to the National Labor Relations Board. We therefore affirm the trial court's order sustaining the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' petition. AFFIRMED.