remedy, unless certain fact situations exist. Take such a case as exists here. The law of the case is that of the State. Assume that under the State law the plaintiff has a cause of action cognizable in Equity with the right to injunctive relief. There is however diversity of citizenship with more than $3000 in controversy. Has this Court the judicial power, in face of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, to issue an injunction in a case involving a labor dispute?
The case of Lauf v. Shinner, 303 U.S. 323, 58 S. Ct. 578, 82 L. Ed. 872, has ruled for us that the Act limits the power of the Court in labor disputes to issue an injunction. This takes us to that Act. No injunction can issue without the finding of certain facts. Act of March 23, 1932, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 101 to 115.
1. The injunction cannot restrain any of the acts enumerated in Section 104.
2. Section 106 forbids that any labor organization or officer thereof be held responsible for any acts committed unless personally and individually participating therein.
3. Under Section 107, Clause (a), no injunction can issue for acts of violence except against the individuals who committed the acts. Here acts of violence have been committed by individuals. There may be a finding of who the guilty parties were and an injunction issue against them.
4. Under Clause (b) there must be a finding of substantial and irreparable injury to the property of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court has held that the business in which a man is engaged is property. The finding may be made of such injury.
5. Under Clause (c) there must be a finding that greater injury will follow the denial than will follow the granting of relief. The plaintiff will suffer loss by a denial. The only effect upon the defendants of the granting of an injunction is psychological. They will incur no money loss. A finding of this fact may be made.
6. To comply with Clause (d) a finding of no adequate remedy at law may be made.
7. Clause (e) requires a finding that the police are unable to furnish adequate protection to the plaintiff. No just complaint can be made of the conduct of the police. They have afforded the plaintiff all the protection which it is possible to give. No police protection is adequate in a strike or can be fully given. This strike is an illustration. If the expression is an allowable one, it is as orderly a strike as any could be. Notwithstanding this there has been resort to unjustified violence. How much more there would have been or may yet be except for the proceedings instituted to retrain violence cannot be forecast. The good old Patrick Henry rule justifies the inference that there will be violence from the fact that there has been. The finding called for may be made.
8. The finding called for by Section 108 may be made.
9. The findings of fact called for by Section 109 may be filed and the form of the injunction issued is to comply with this Section.
10. The injunction bond required by Section 107 shall be in the penal sum of $5,000, with surety approved by the Clerk of the Court.
Counsel may submit submit findings of fact required by the Act in accordance with this opinion. When the findings are made a writ of injunction may issue.
We wish to express our appreciation and commendation of the frankness and fairness displayed by those concerned with this strike. It has been a great help in dealing with our part of the problem presented.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.