Court Opinion

ID: 9662397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:08:14.006526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:39.250059
License: Public Domain

Sam BobiNSON, J., dissenting. There is only one issue and that is whether the plumbers were picketing for the purpose of coercing Daniel into making a contract for a “closed shop” in violation of Amendment No. 34 to the Constitution of this State prohibiting discrimination for or against union labor. It is the contention of Daniel that the union was seeking a contract for a closed shop whereby Daniel would employ union labor only. There is an abundance of evidence to the effect that the union did not want to be discriminated against,, but there is absolutely no evidence showing that the union wanted to bring about a violation of the constitutional amendment. The majority have not pointed out any substantial evidence to that effect and to say that the union men were seeking a closed shop is pure speculation. It is conceded by all that picketing is unlawful in this State if it is for the purpose of forcing a closed shop; hut the point here is that the evidence does not justify a conclusion that the union men were seeking an unlawful contract. It is practically undisputed that the union men felt that they were being discriminated against; they had a right to peacefully picket and thereby give publicity to such discrimination. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 60 S. Ct. 736, 84 L. Ed. 1093. The picket sign put up by the union read: “E. B. Daniel Plumbing & Butane Company is discriminating against organized labor and Local No. 29 Plumbers and Steam Fitters.” Daniel had a good-sized job; ten or twelve journeymen plumbers would be needed. There does not appear to have been a shortage of qualified plumbers in the city of Fort Smith. The union plumbers of that city, anticipating that Daniel would avoid giving them employment, brought about a meeting of members of the Chamber of Commerce and the contractor, Davis, in an effort to get work for the local men. Certainly these men were acting within their rights in trying to obtain employment. Daniel was running an ad daily in the local paper seeking to employ plumbers; the local union employment office which could have furnished the needed men was not contacted and only one union plumber was employed. Daniel caused about twelve applicants to take the examination for a plumber’s license in Fort Smith, all of whom failed to pass the examination except Merl Daniel; he took the examination and passed it; there is absolutely no evidence that the examination was unfair or that the men who took it and failed were in fact qualified plumbers. The fact that Daniel was having these unqualified men take the examination, when local licensed union plumbers were available and wanted work, shows rather conclusively that Daniel was discriminating against the union members, especially so when Daniel continued to run the ad for plumbers. The evidence is convincing that Daniel did not want to employ union men and was doing everything possible to avoid it. Of course, the members of the union wanted employment and, in an effort to obtain work, they attempted to bring economic pressure on Daniel by establishing a picket line to prevent discrimination against the union. This State has no law from any source which prohibits peaceful picketing in a situation such as is presented here. The majority appear to stress the point that at the time of commencement of the picketing only one union man was employed by Daniel. The picketing would have been lawful if no union men had been in the employ of Daniel. Senn v. Tile Layers Union, 301 U. S. 468, 57 S. Ct. 857, 81 L. Ed. 1229; Cafeteria Union v. Angelos, 320 U. S. 392, 64 S. Ct. 126, 88 L. Ed. 58; A. F. of L. v. Swing, 312 U. S. 321, 61 S. Ct. 568, 85 L. Ed. 855. I am thoroughly convinced from the record in this case that the union men were not picketing for the purpose of coercing Daniel into entering into a contract for a closed shop in violation of the law of this State, but were picketing for the purpose of preventing discrimination against the union men. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. Mr. Justice George Bose Smith joins in this dissent.