Court Opinion

ID: 9545861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:21:07.567609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:39.818637
License: Public Domain

PORTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I cannot concur in the majority opinion. Respondent was the business manager of the Motor Transit Company. He participated in the negotiations over the dispute between the Company and appellants. On May 4, 1951, he entered into a conditional sales contract with the Company wherein he purchased and acknowledged delivery, examination and acceptance of the motor vehicles of the Company. He paid nothing down but agreed to pay $600 per month commencing on June 10, 1951. On May 7, 1951, the City of Pocatello suspended the franchise of the Motor Transit Company for six months and granted a six months temporary franchise to respondent, both effective May 10, 1951. The Company continued to operate until May 10 when respondent “just took over and started to operating as the owner”. He retained the same routes and schedules, used the same buses, tickets, tokens and transfers, leased and used the same shops and terminals as the Company, and used the same bus drivers at the same wages until the strike.
The agreement between the Company and appellants designates the “Pocatello Transit Company, its successors and assigns”, as parties of the first part. Respondent was a successor to the Pocatello Transit Company with' full knowledge of. the existence of the labor dispute. By his acquisition of the business enterprise employing the involved employees, he should not be permitted to extinguish the rights of such employees. Sutter v. Amalgamated Ass’n, etc., 252 Ala. 364, 41 So.2d 190.
The dispute between the Pocatello Transit Company and appellants was a labor dispute within the meaning of Section 44-712, I.C. Boise Street Car Co. v. Van Avery, 61 Idaho 502, 103 P.2d 1107. It is so recognized in the agreement between the Company and appellants which provides :
“The purpose of this agreement is to provide a working understanding between the Company and the employes of the Company covered by this agreement, through their duly accredited representatives, affecting hours of labor, wages and basic working conditions, and to establish a means of settling any and all grievances, disputes and' controversies arising' between the Company and the above employes of the Company and pursuant to said pur*232pose the parties hereto agree as follows
I find nothing in the record showing such abuse of the right of peaceful picketing and of dissemination of knowledge of a labor dispute which justified the issuance of the injunction. The judgment should be reversed.
THOMAS, J., concurs in this dissent. .