Court Opinion

ID: 9688474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:49:28.41766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:39.281640
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing..
On February 9, 1951, the following opinion was filed:
Knutson, Justice.
At the time the decision in this case was filed, the court had before it, in addition to the briefs, a printed record. It now appears that in addition to the printed record there was in existence a single copy of a typewritten return to the alternative writ of prohibition, which contained all that was included in the printed record and, in addition, a transcript of testimony and other proceedings had before the court subsequent to the issuance of the restraining order which we have under consideration. Such typewritten return was inadvertently overlooked until after the opinion was issued. The nature of the case was such that a speedy hearing and decision were imperative. The case was heard during vacation. We have now reconsidered the entire record thoroughly, and in order that there be no misunderstanding as to what we intended to hold we file this additional opinion.
In the petition for rehearing, counsel for respondent have seen fit to describe the printed record which we had before us as a “phony” record. It must be kept in mind that the restraining order under consideration was issued ex parte upon the complaint and affidavits submitted in connection therewith. Everything which the district court had before it when the order was issued is in the printed record which we had before us. To that extent, at least, the record we considered was complete, and there was nothing phony about it. The question brought before us by the writ of prohibition was whether the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter involved in the complaint. Jurisdiction of the subject matter is to be tested by the authorized extent of the powers of the court in respect to the cause of action before it. Carlson v. Bartels, 143 Neb. 680, 10 N. W. (2d) 671, 148 A. L. R. 658.
*112“The test for determining jurisdiction is ordinarily the nature of the case, as made by the complaint, and the relief sought, * * 21 C. J. S., Courts, § 35.
The primary function of a complaint is to state the facts constituting the cause of action. Baker v. Habedank, 202 Minn. 231, 277 N. W. 925. It must follow that the jurisdiction of the court to issue ex parte the restraining order here involved must be tested by the complaint and record made at the time it was issued. If, on such record, it appears that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue it, no subsequent proceedings could breathe life into an order that never was legally born.
Respondent now, in its petition for rehearing, takes the position that the picketing involved was primary and that it did not constitute a secondary boycott at all. That position is entirely inconsistent with respondent’s complaint, as well as with all statements made by its counsel at hearings held subsequent to the issuance of the order. After alleging the facts complained of, respondent’s complaint sums up the effect which the acts complained of will have upon it, as follows:
“* * * That such unlawful acts are being done to induce or compel plaintiff to refrain from doing business with said Canadian Corporation because of said failure of agreement between said Canadian Corporation and said defendant Canadian Union.”
The above statement in the complaint spells out a secondary boycott if it spells out anything. If further confirmation of respondent’s position is necessary, we need only refer to the typewritten transcript, which was inadvertently overlooked when the original opinion was written, wherein respondent’s counsel stated the position of respondent emphatically on several occasions. At the hearing before the court on August 2, 1950, we find the following on page 5 of the transcript:
“Mr. Neimeyer: * * * The suit, as you know, is brought against certain persons who happen to be on the property of the Norris *113Grain Company picketing that property so that the Norris Grain Company can’t ship grain out of its elevator by a boat which happens to be here which happens to be a Canadian boat, and consequently has not been able to load that boat and is damaged and aggrieved and feels that that is a cause of action under certain sections of our statutes which prohibits a secondary boycott. * * * We are suing people who happen to be on our property and who happen to be violating Minnesota law.” (Italics supplied.)
On page 25 of the transcript we find the following:
“Mr. Neimeyer: * * * Now counsel is exactly right when he says we are bringing this action under the secondary boycott provisions and we have stated the facts about what is being done here. The secondary boycott provisions: — I won’t read the declaration of policy — ” (italics supplied),
after which he proceeded to read the provisions of our state secondary boycott law. On page 27 we find the following by Mr. Nei-meyer :
“Now surely this secondary boycott law must have been put in to meet just this situation.” (Italics supplied.)
Again, on page 35 we find the following:
“The Court: How can it be a secondary boycott then?
“Mr. Neimeyer: Because it happens to be the effect of the dispute between those two people.
■Sf * * 4Í- *
“* * * And the secondary boycott is here — ” (Italics supplied.)
The court was of the same opinion. In its memorandum it said:
“Plaintiff contends the defendants are conducting a secondary boycott and the plaintiff is entitled to seek relief under the Minnesota Labor Relations Act but is not restricted to the remedies afforded thereunder.”
It is true that relator took the opposite view, but relator’s position at hearings subsequent to the issuance of the order could *114hardly change the nature of the proceeding made out by the complaint, the order having been issued ex parte and relator having had no opportunity to appear at that time.
In support of its petition for rehearing, respondent has cited several cases in which the courts have held that picketing which is primary is not covered by the federal act under the circumstances there disclosed, even though such picketing might incidentally affect an innocent employer. We have no quarrel with those decisions. Respondent’s difficulty here is that the court’s order is based upon a complaint and record which is entirely inconsistent with any holding of primary picketing. It would serve no useful purpose to review all authorities cited by respondent. Reference to a few should suffice to show how inconsistent respondent’s position is.
In Oil Workers Int’l Union (Pure Oil Co.) 84 N. L. R. B. 315, 318, June 17, 1949, we find the following statement:
“* * * In this case the Union was making certain lawful demands on Standard Oil. It was pressing these demands, in part, by picketing the Standard Oil dock. As that picketing was confined to the immediate vicinity of Standard Oil premises we find that it constituted permissive primary action.” (Italics supplied.)
In United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (Ryan Construction Corp.) 85 N. L. R. B. 417, 418, July 28, 1949, the board said:
“* * * it [referring to the federal act] was intended only to outlaw certain secondary boycotts whereby unions sought to enlarge the economic battleground beyond the premises of the primary Employer. When picketing is wholly at the premises of the employer with whom the union is engaged in a labor dispute, it cannot be called ‘secondary’ even though, as is virtually always the case, an object of the picketing is to dissuade all persons from entering such premises for business reasons.”
*115Contrast these statements with those of respondent’s counsel before the trial court. On page 5 of the typewritten return Mr. Neimeyer said: “The suit, * * * is brought against certain persons who happen to be on the property of the Norris Grain Company (Italics supplied.) On page 19 Mr. Neimeyer said: “They happen to be picketing on Norris Grain Company property. There is no question about that, and they are trespassing.” On page 20 we find the following: “Mr. Neimeyer: I am talking about where they are. They are on Norris Grain Company property.”
In order that our position may be completely clarified, it was and is our holding that the complaint and record presented to the trial court upon which an ex parte restraining order was issued present facts which, on their face, constitute a secondary boycott; that respondent is engaged in interstate commerce; that secondary boycotts are within the scope of the Taft-Hartley Act; that the National Labor Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction over such labor dispute; and that as a result the state court had no jurisdiction to issue the-restraining order.
With the clarification contained herein, we adhere to our former opinion, and the petition for rehearing is denied.
Me. Justice Magney took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.