Document: 333 U.S. 437 68 S.Ct. 630 92 L.Ed. 792 BAKERY SALES DRIVERS LOCAL UNION NO. 33 et al.v.WAGSHAL. No. 225. Argued Dec. 17, 18, 1947. Decided March 15, 1948. Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Wm. E. Leahy, respondent. [Argument Counsel from page 438 intentionally omitted] Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion Court. 1 This is an action brought in a United States District Court to enjoin interference with business, and question whether complaint subjects that court limitations imposed by Norris-LaGuardia Act upon its equity jurisdiction. 2 substance complaint. Respondent owns delicatessen store which sells food serves meals. She obtained bread Hinkle's bakery. Deliveries were made driver, employee Hinkle member Local Union 33, one petitioners. The driver at noon, inconvenienced respondent, since checking deliveries hour interfered serving lunches. 'required' bring another hour. Shortly thereafter, Hik le informed respondent it would no longer furnish her bakery products. And so, arrangements bakery, more convenient 3 Three weeks later, petitioner Andre, president union, visited stated owed approximately $150 requested immediate payment. replied she had never dealings but paid directly check, pay bill due course. Andre payment have be full; furthermore, if did not cease carrying certain non-union article he noticed on display, delivery bread, milk, other products necessary respondent's business cut off. thereafter sent check balance bill. It was returned letter signed asserting member, could accepted. following day, been after stopped doing ceased deal her, explaining union threatened otherwise 'to pull out all drivers.' Through effective boycott, kept obtaining bakeries or retail stores. also picketed. 4 prayed temporary permanent injunctions against boycott damages, usual catch-all relief. Petitioners moved dismiss ground controversy as set forth involved 'labor dispute' under Act, 47 Stat. 70, 29 U.S.C. § 101 seq., U.S.C.A. seq. filed 'answer motion dismiss,' attached affidavits, including Benjamin Wagshal, manager store, elaborating incidents narrated Among matters forth, purchased always neither nor any drivers ever previously questioned this practice; asserted mail $12.22 short amount owed; item sale objected subject merely excuse Andre's attempt, his visit enforce demands concerning bill, event discontinued. 5 granted injunction pendente lite, restraining petitioners interfering preventing picketing. At same time, denied petitioners' dismiss. notice appeal Appeals Columbia, respondents appeal. 6 If case does involve right Columbia. 31 1189, 1225, amended, D.C.Code (1940) 17—101. However, 10 72, 110, provides review order granting denying 'any involving growing labor dispute * *.'1 Appeals, justice dissenting, held such case, dismissed 161 F.2d 380. Because conflict between decision prior decisions scope within meaning we certiorari. 332 756, 7. 7 A preliminary claim must met, has become moot. answer argument Labor Management Relations 1947, P.L. 101, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 10(h), 160(h), removed power issue what are known secondary boycotts, law changed only where sought National Board, proceedings instituted private party. mootness based affidavit stating dismissal lifted boycott. Since record show stay pending Court, assume union's obedience judgment now here review. We therefore turn merits. 8 attach significance three their involved. 9 1. over delivery. 'concerning terms conditions (the driver's) employment,' thereby raising dispute, 'whether disputants stand proximate relation employer employee.' 13(c) Act. But nothing do working employees, individually collectively. Her desire come suitable interest satisfy rather than run risk losing trade—to different hour, independent contractor, through some resourceful contrivance. To hold circumstances failure two busins smen created because them might affected work particular other, almost every sellers buyers price, quantity, quality, delivery, payment, credit, transaction into dispute.' Cf. Columbia River Packers Ass'n v. Hinton, 315 143, 62 520, 86 750. Furthermore, basis before us, disagreement dead controversy, subsequent directed. 2. regard both Hinkle, disputed sum $12.22, matter driver's wages, condition employment. But, allegations here, wages. customer. On considered, receive immaterial may conduit payment—as who deliver packages normally are. true $12.22. mere fact representative collector who, without creditor's consent, seeks obtain obligation, transmute Dorchy State Kansas, 272 306, 311, 86, 87, 71 248. 11 3. store. Sale merchant commodities is, doubt, traditional source disputes While itself indicate history visit, dismiss' sets bona fide bone contention, pretext, and, further, withdrew sale. conclusion incident giving rise necessarily terminate (cf. Hunt Crumboch, 325 821, 65 1545, 89 1954), us leaves doubt addressed suggest except oral testimony, determination there should rest affidavits. affidavits gloss constituted informal amendment. They serve allegations, proof. 12 decided All determined claims, chose controvert, apply. below, appealability depended applicability questions raised open here. 13 Affirmed. 14 BLACK, DOUGLAS, MURPHY dissent. 15 RUTLEDGE took part consideration case. Section 73, 113, reads follows: 'Section 13. When used purposes Act—(a) shall grow when involves persons engaged industry, trade, craft, occupation; direct indirect interests therein; employees employer; members affiliated organization employers employees; (1) associations (2) employers; (3) conflicting competing (as hereinafter defined) 'persons participating interested' therein defined). '(b) person association interested relief him it, occupation occurs, therein, officer, agent composed whole occupation. '(c) term includes employment, association, representation negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, seeking arrange regardless employee. '(d) 'court States' means whose jurisdiction conferred defined limited Congress, courts Columbia.'

Category: 6