Court Opinion

ID: 9674079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:22:47.837751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.498106
License: Public Domain

Memorandum on Concurrence in Result
VAN OSDOL, C.
The well-written opinion of Judge Coil-rules that picketing under the facts of the instant case is against the public policy of this state. See bottom page 10 and top of page 11. The result is reached by striking a balance between the constitutional protection of the [160] element of free speech involved in picketing and “the power of the State to set the limits of permissible conduct open to industrial combatants.” Page 10. The various relevant matters which are specifically considered in arriving at the result include the “element of unfairness inherent in the proposition that the union’s policy may not be satisfied by the owner-operator joining the union.” Page 10. This element or “relevant matter,” as I understand it, relates to the evidence and inferences recited and deduced in the first complete paragraph on page 7.
In studying the entire opinion I believe that Judge Coil would have dissolved the injunction had the owner-operator been eligible to join the union and by so joining he could have continued to operate his own projection machine. But I am not ready to agree that (in determining what is the public policy of this state in a factual situation otherwise like that in this case) the fact that an owner-operator may or may not join the picketing union (whatever may be the union’s policy with respect to permitting an owner-operator union member to operate his own projection machine) is a decisive or even a relevant matter. So I concur in the result only.