Document: 383 U.S. 715 86 S.Ct. 1130 16 L.Ed.2d 218 UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner,v.Paul GIBBS. No. 243. Argued Jan. 20, 1966. Decided March 28, [Syllabus from pages 715-717 intentionally omitted] Willard P. Owens, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Clarence Walker, Chattanooga, Tenn., respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondent Paul Gibbs was awarded compensatory and punitive damages in this action against petitioner United Mine Workers America (NMW) alleged violations § 303 Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 158, as amended,1 common law Tennessee. The case grew out rivalry between Southern Union over representation workers southern Appalachian coal fields. Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company, not a party here, laid off 100 miners UMW's Local 5881 when it closed one its mines during spring 1960. Late that summer, Grundy wholly owned subsidiary Consolidated, hired respondent mine superintendent to attempt open new on Consolidated's property at nearby Gray's Creek through use members Union. As part arrangement, also gave contract haul mine's nearest railroad loading point. 2 On August 15 16, 1960, armed forcibly prevented opening mine, threatening beating an organizer rival union.2 local believed had promised them jobs mine; they insisted if anyone would do work, would. At time, no representative UMW, their international union, present. George Gilbert, field area including 5881, away Middlesboro, Kentucky, attending Executive Board meeting discovered Grundy's plan;3 he did return until late day 16. There uncontradicted testimony first learned violence while meeting, returned with explicit instructions his union superiors establish limited picket line, prevent any further violence, see strike spread neighboring mines. site; line maintained there nine months; attempts were made period.4 3 lost job superintendent, never entered into performance haulage contract. He testified soon began lose other trucking contracts leases held areas. Claiming these effects be result concerted plan him, sought recovery or members, but only petitioner, union. suit brought States District Court Eastern Tennessee, see, jurisdiction premised allegations secondary boycotts under s 303. state claim, which based upon doctrine pendent jurisdiction, asserted 'an unlawful conspiracy boycott aimed him (Grundy) maliciously, wantonly willfully interfere employment haulage.'5 4 trial judge refused submit jury claims pressure intended cause mining firms than cease doing business Gibbs; found those unsupported by evidence. jury's verdict UMW violated both law. $60,000 $14,500 contract; $100,000 damages. motion, court set aside award respect ground damage unproved. It discharge supervisor constitute primary dispute Grundy, respondent's employer, hence cognizable claim Interference relationship however, remitted sustained claim.6 220 F.Supp. 871. Appeals Sixth Circuit affirmed. 343 F.2d 609. We granted certiorari. 382 809, 59, 58. reverse. I. 5 A threshold question is whether properly entertained need decide like Teamsters, Chauffeurs Helpers v. Morton, 337 252, 84 1253, 12 280, since pertinent peaceful activities we such been pre-empted But here proofs intimidation. '(W)e have allowed grant compensation consequences, defined traditional torts, conduct marked imminent threats public order. International Union, Automobile, Aircraft Agricultural Implement Workers, etc. Russell, 356 634, 78 932, 1030; Construction Laburnum Const.Corp., 347 656, 74 833, 98 L.Ed. 1025. * State has prevailed situations because compelling interest, scheme our federalism, maintenance domestic peace overridden absence clearly expressed congressional direction.' San Diego Building Trades Council Millmen's 2020 Garmon, 359 236, 247, 79 773, 781, 775. 6 fact remedies entirely does not, answer adjudicated absent diversity jurisdiction. Hurn Oursler, 289 238, 53 586, 77 1148, are appropriate federal determination form separate parallel relief substantial distinguished permissible non-permissible exercises judicial power contrasting 'a where two distinct grounds support single alleged, presents question, causes character. In former, averred plainly wanting substance, court, even though established, may nevertheless retain dispose nonfederal ground; latter so action.' U.S., 246, S.Ct., 589. category present fell. 7 decided 1933, before unification equity Federal Rules Civil Procedure. meaning 'cause action' subject serious dispute;7 phrase might 'mean thing purpose something different another.' Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 62, 67 68, 278, 619.8 identified what meant term citation Baltimore S.S. Co. Phillips, 274 316, 47 600, 71 1069, used identify operative scope res judicata. noted "the whole tendency decisions require plaintiff try time," 320, 602. stated holding following language, quoted opinion: 8 'Upon principle, perfectly plain (a seaman suing injury working aboard ship) suffered actionable wrong, entitled recovery, due several acts negligence, combination some all them. either view, wrongful invasion right plaintiff, namely, bodily safety, constituting many, simple complex. 9 'A consist facts, violation facts show. number variety more long result, considered severally combination, legal wrong. mere multiplication negligence causing same multiplying action. 'The merely means, end. They action, show existence making wrong appear." Id., 321, 10 Had jurisdictional bar reaching Hurn, assume judicata applicable subsequent suit. shows weighty policies economy fairness parties reflected themselves strong counsel adoption rule permit courts well claims. 11 With Procedure unified Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 2, much controversy abated. remained keystone test, and, commentators noted,9 source considerable confusion. Under Rules, impulse toward entertaining broadest possible consistent parties; joinder claims, strongly encouraged.10 Yet involves issues convenience, limit application cases are, 'little equivalent epithets characterize group circumstances.' 590.11 This approach unnecessarily grudging. Pendent sense power, exists whenever 'arising (the) Constitution, Laws States, Treaties made, shall Authority *,' U.S.Const., Art. III, permits conclusion entire comprises constitutional 'case.'12 must substance sufficient confer matter court. Levering & Garrigues Morrin, 103, 549, 1062. derive nucleus fact. if, without regard character, plaintiff's ordinarily expected proceeding, then, assuming substantiality issues, hear whole.13 13 That exercised every exist. consistently recognized discretion, right.14 Its justification lies considerations economy, convenience litigants; should hesitate exercise bound apply them, Erie R. Tompkins, 304 64, 58 817, 82 1188. Needless avoided comity promote justice parties, procuring surer-footed reading law.15 Certainly, dismissed trial, insubstantial sense, well.16 Similarly, appears substantially predominate, terms proof, raised, comprehensiveness remedy sought, prejudice left resolution tribunals. may, hand, closely tied questions policy argument particularly strong. case, example, allowable implicates pre-emption; interrelationship create statutory Louisville N.R. Mottley, 211 149, 29 42, 126, relevant discretion. Finally, reasons independent considerations, likelihood confusion treating divergent theories relief, justify separating 42(b). If so, refused. 14 will resolved pleadings. issue assumed remains throughout litigation. Pretrial procedures itself reveal hegemony confusion, could anticipated pleading stage. Although course take account circumstance already completedcourse litigation, dismissal then merited. For appear aware nature relative importance claims; recognition court's wide latitude ancillary imply tolerate litigant's effort impose effect case. Once constitutes real body appendage, fairly dismissed. prepared say exceeded discretion proceeding judgment claim. purposes decision correct terminate outside purview Even pressures operators generally substantial. pressures, supra, damages, activity, arose alternative remedies. Indeed, sheet sent authorized given separately true ultimately failed cannot confidently say, remote played minor role tried. unproved petitioner's included induce respondent, submitted relating jury. verdicts motion directed n.o.v. aside. Judge proved liability, lack proof risk confusing joining claims—especially since, developed, differing standards involvement applied—the possibility lessened employing special form, did. Moreover, pre-emption afforded reason jurisdiction; bodies principles. thus conclude although might, sound circumstances error refusing so. II. 17 deal appearing labor disputes, sustaining remedial measures contention passage legislation. Allen-Bradley 1111, Wisconsin Employment Board, 315 740, 62 820, 1154; Corp., 1025; Automobile 351 266, 76 794, 1162; Youngdahl Rainfair, Inc., 355 131, 206, 151; Agr. 1030. Petitioner concedes argues strictly confined direct consequences conduct, include resulting associated picketing activity. agree. 18 Our opinions subject, frequently announced arguments dissent being too broad scope, approved carefully protection interest peace. Thus, Council, 775, read prior allowing 'the order,' id., 19 'damages restricted directly proximately caused chargeable defendants *' torts. Thus nothing measure indicate exerted compensate anything violent conduct.' 248, n. 6, 249, S.Ct, 782. 20 specifically observed charged find proximate relation force complained of, loss wages allegedly suffered, other. 638, 3, 935. State's administrative-injunctive prohibition continuation picketing, picketing. 748, 825; 269—270, 796—797. And Youngdahl, injunction prohibited modified premises. said, '(t)hough within discretionary enjoining future intimidation strikers yet equally clear domain National insofar enjoined *.' 139, 211.17 21 Milk Wagon Drivers Chicago, 753 Meadowmoor Dairies, 312 287, 552, 85 836, sweeping injunctive barring dispute, not. freedom speech. consider impact regulatory power. 212, context extreme repeated violence—'a pattern inevitably reappear event later resumed.' presented 'whether can choose authorize enjoin enmeshed contemporaneously concededly outlawed,' 292, 554, reasoned 22 'acts isolation coercive thrust entangled violence. background setting justifiably concluded momentum fear generated past survive peaceful.' 294, 555. 23 Such appeared after marred occurred, component engendered.18 Where separable, latter. 24 volence tort narrow bounds occurred days strike. issue, pleadings, jury, adequately compass claimed was, essence, 'conspiracy' Gibbs' contractual relations. poorly defined, highly susceptible expansion; relatively brief history colored weapon developing movement.19 record gives impression notion employed expand beyond limits showing 25 complaint haulage.' No limitation interference appears. arguing asserted, participated liability inferred standard fields Tennessee.20 law, actually authorized, ratified particular involved general necessary part, who engaged related conspiracy's purpose.21 26 kept concept proper bounds. charge instructed characterizing each predicated assertion 'unlawful' distinguishing basis lawfulness means rather object controlling.' charging stressed 'unlawfulness' such, controlling. relations said 'wrongful accomplished violence.' Turning union's responsibility, depended 'was pursuant committed.' 27 agreement thing, lawful means. essential conspirators formally forexample, persons agreed pursue third person knowledge assents impliedly expressly participates it, three conspiracy. (A)ll required know agrees assist manner furtherance accomplishing purpose.' 28 charged, accordance conspiracy,22 member conspiracy, liable 'done concert purpose, design,' in, acts. told 'only defendant,' '(n)o losses activity defendant agents.' focus attention predicate award. III. doctrine, reversal failure meet requirements imposed Norris-LaGuardia Act:23 30 'No officer association organization, organization participating interested responsible individual officers, agents, except actual participation authorization acts, ratification thereof.' 31 vigorously contends applied case; that, record, having 15—16; once fell short intent build campaign fears engendered. 32 Brotherhood Carpenters Joiners 330 395, 403, 780, 91 973, 33 called evidence changes substantive agency. relieve organizations imputation guilt lawless done disputes officers member, responsibility offense, participated, authorization, perpetration.' 34 Shortly thereafter, Congress passed provides statute, 303, measured reference ordinary doctrines agency, stringent 6.24 legislative indicates decision,25 repeal outright, arising Act. selectivity surprising, recovered. driving behind 626 opposition form,27 unions destroyed practical control. Plainly, applies adjudications section apply.28 35 statute define 'clear proof,' rationale suggest least signify commonly accorded similar phrases 'clear, unequivocal, convincing proof.' standard, civil satisfy criminal reasonable doubt participation, ratification; neither prevail burden persuasion. persuade margin, come forward 'more bare preponderance prevail.' Schneiderman 320 118, 125, 63 1333, 1336, 87 1796. met.29 36 outset, requisite undoubtedly site days, nor representative, series events culminating immediately return, subsided. conceded '(t)he sketchy defendant's (first days' violence).' view accurately reflects record. occurred. 37 remaining Preliminarily, note inconsistent fabric national infer carried normal functions, provision relief. undertake tasks requires encouraged restraining influence explosive situations; seek harm done. ripples earlier still felt permitted, liability. Because sparked often continue, feel up curb excesses. rigid requirement affirmatively disavow previously Cf. ILGWU 99 U.S.App.D.C. 237 545. What actively knowing tolerance drew previous force. 38 persuasive stop curtail news reached Gilbert attending, firm scene, control strike, suppress size assure affected.30 succeeded. harassed large unruly mob town, incident unrelated repeated. site, pickets reduced very few. Other immediate area, worked lease Gibbs, continued operate, strenuous accomplish this; official testified, 'I thought I going get whipped times (by opposed policy).'31 39 To sure, pleased abortive venture company finally opened hired, 'Had none today.' shortly want you keep your damn hands there, tell don't intend work mine.' another, 'Hell, can't let go trying bring (Gilbert said) ain't it.' witness reported remarks tenor. own safety visit His foreman connected persons. 40 representatives shown endorsed settling dispute. Circuit's had. 41 threat succeeding months. night followed spectacular beginning guaranty warning treatment area. aura enhance effectiveness Certainly man just knocked me down my front steps continues stand guard door.' F.2d, 616. 42 An 'impression' ephemeral product relied ratification. accepting proof' present, 43 handled it. unemployed hills others backs. considering vicarious accommoation bears construction obtain more. fails rebut unwilling ends indeed excesses Since establishes remedy. supra. firmer assured crucial degree certainty 6. 44 Reversed. 45 THE CHIEF JUSTICE took 46 HARLAN, whom CLARK joins, concurring. agree join Part Court's II, refrain speculations about uses put preemption cases. III Act seems correct, interpretation somewhat narrower 48 (the acts), thereof.'1 construes fixing test quantum somewhere standards. think admittedly vague imports reading, believe introduces revealing inconsistency cases, governed standing head reduce quantum-of-proof is, 'beyond doubt.' best give light shed directing type inferential authority unacceptable framed me, gist usual instance carrying functions affirmative dispel misconduct wrongdoing.2 49 apart few quite ambiguous episodes, home except, (see p. 741, ante), renewed repudiate promise oppose renewal. Whatever imposing situation, approximates designed forbid. basis, concur reversal. Section 1947 provides: '(a) unlawful, only, industry affecting commerce, engage unfair practice 158(b)(4) title. '(b) Whoever injured (of) subsection (a) sue therefor district limitations provisions 185 title amount controversy, recover cost suit.' U.S.C. 187 (1964 ed.). Title ed.), 5(b)(4) amended, 73 542, provides, that: agents '(4)(i) encourage commerce refusal use, manufacture, process, transport, otherwise handle goods, articles, materials, commodities perform services; (ii) threaten, coerce, restrain thereof is— '(B) forcing requiring using, selling, handling, transporting, dealing products producer, processor, manufacturer, person, employer recognize bargain employees unless certified 159 title: Provided, contained clause (B) construed make These proceedings Board. one, unlawfully assisted 8(a)(2) 452, 158(a)(2) 131 N.L.R.B. 536, enforcement denied sub nom. 307 374 (C.A.6th Cir. 1962). other, 8(b)(1)(A), 141, 158(b)(1)(A) UMWA, 130 1181. Board's consideration focused suggesting thatGilbert 15—16 statement 'Well, everything happened fast I'm thinking seen drive went, know.' Whether ever presence decide, effectively Middlesboro Immediately order reopened men 5881. Later, litigation awaiting accident. point, fall 1962, using See Dukes Painters, etc., 437, 191 Tenn. 495, 235 S.W.2d 7, A.L.R.2d 1223 (1950); Brumley Chattanooga Speedway Motordrome 138 534, 198 S.W. 775 (1917); Dale Thomas H. Temple 186 69, 208 344 (1948). form. suggested remittitur $30,000 $45,000 accepted disposition, reach contentions toto prejudicial summation counsel, rested contract, vacated Clark Code Pleading 75 et seq. (1928); Clark, Cause Action, Yale L.J. 817 (1924); McCaskill, Actions Causes Actions, 614 (1925); One Form Procedure, Courts, Ill.L.Rev. 415 (1935); Gavit, 'Pragmatic Definition' 'Cause Action'? U.Pa.L.Rev. 129 (1933); 354 (1934); Action—a Reply, 695 (1934). American Fire Cas. Finn, 341 12, 539, 95 702; Musher Foundation, Inc. Alba Trading 127 9, (C.A.2d 1942) (dissenting J.) Shulman Jaegerman, Some Jurisdictional Limitations 393, 397—410 (1936); Wechsler, Jurisdiction Revision Judicial Code, Law Contemp. Prob. 216, 232 (1948); Barron Holtzoff, Practice (1965 Supp.). See, eG., Fed.Rules 18—20, 42. E.g., Foundation supra; Note, Evolution Scope Doctrine Col.L.Rev. 1018, 1029—1030 (1962). joined 'case' difficult inquiry presented, Gully First Bank, 299 109, 57 96, 81 70, qualifies States' together, Dann Studebaker-Packard 201, 211—215 1961); Borak J. Case 317 838, 847—848 (C.A.7th 1963), aff'd grounds, 377 426, 1555, 423. Armstrong Paint Varnish Works Nu-Enamel 305 315, 325, 59 191, 196, 83 195. Problems Parallel Remedies, Harv.L.Rev. 513, 514 (1958). While commonplace courts, embody time,' extent emphasize Massachusetts Universalist Convention Hildreth Rogers 183 497 (C.A.1st 1950);Moynahan Pari-Mutuel Employees Guild, 209, 211—212 (C.A.9th 1963); op. cit. notes 11. principal Erie, remarked (on jurisdiction) wise fixed statesmanship arbiter states nation system.' 408. oft-cited concurrence Strachman Palmer, 177 427, 431, 687 1949), Magruder counseled '(f)ederal overeager hold appropriately settlement litigation,' 433. 232—233; 1660, 1661 (1961); 11, 1043—1044. 1025—1026; Wham-O-Mfg. v.Paradise Mfg. 327 752—754 1964). analysis characterized proscribed activity; intervened issued permitted continuance flexibility tort, Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. Theatre, 133 187, 189 1943); Riley Dun Bradstreet, 195 812 1952); Charlesworth, Conspiracy Ground Liability Tort, L.Q.Rev. (1920); Burdick, Crime, 229 (1907); Tort Conspiracy, 117 (1908). antilabor illustrated Sayre, 682, 684—687 (1930). Similar dangers malicious 691—695, young origins force, threats, fraud, more, Inducing Breach Contract, 663 (1923); Comment, 56 NW.U.L.Rev. 391 (1961). Respondent's attorney argued summation: '* Pass (an petitioner's) nation. better. guess testimony. deviation Turnblazer says, Washington. nationwide nation, over. care Canada West Virginia California Tennessee.' Note 5, Ibid. 71, 106 2(13), 152(13) ed.); §§ 301(e), 303(b), 157, 159, 185(e), 187(b) e.g., S.Rep.No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 21. fullest 163, 72d pp. 19—21. introduced floor Senate Senator Taft, response severe proposal 93 Cong.Rec. 4769—4770, 4833—4847, 4858—4875 (1947). tenor pages, 4765—4766 (remarks Thomas); 6451—6452 Morse); 6520—6521 Pepper). responsible, vis-a -vis less demanding determining 'individual agents' organization. occasion assess issue. all. length prove evidence, 'if carries however slight be, verdict.' connection discussion remarked: 'Before entering act necessarily defendant, subsequently referred once, explained. understand completely overlooked lengthy given. challenge charge, objection entered. Accordingly, rest personnel sent, perhaps wanted foot NLRB proceedings, ensued. explained board investigating certainly mass great trouble, coming near area.' About six earthmoving equipment salesman entrance stopped ask how another mine. among picketers, instructions. 'couldn't through' road chosen, route; met spoken Gilbert. sinister cast incident, operations interfered with. significant threatened way; directions, received return. full 735, ante. document, 72 19—21, illuminating end Frankfurter Greene, Injunction 74—75 illustrate rulings deemed improper, book states: "Authorization' 'have scale, point time place admitted impossible plan'; discipline wrong-doer; benefits.' (Footnotes omitted.) 220—221, 42; 418—419 787—788 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).

Category: 8