rights under the contract, the National Labor Relations Act and the United States Constitution; tending to create labor relations disharmony with the possible resultant damaging effects on interstate commerce. The Federal District Court has jurisdiction and should assert it to prevent such interference and without awaiting the outcome of an election. Regardless of the outcome of the election the State Board is without power or jurisdiction to declare under the circumstances here present that a state-wide unit with appendages is appropriate and to proceed to hold elections pursuant thereto.
Council and the State Board rely heavily upon the case of Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., supra. That case is squarely against them. The very fact that the Supreme Court of the United States held that the jurisdiction of the National Board was exclusive so as to preclude any interference therewith by the Federal District Court, a fortiori proves that the State Board has no more right than the Federal District Court to interfere with the exclusive proceeding of the National Board and their attempt to do so should be enjoined.
The adequacy of the legal remedy is to be determined by considering the remedy available in the Federal Court, not that granted by the State statutes and available in State Courts.
We think the averments in the complaint as to irreparable injury are sufficient under the decision in A.F. of L. v. Watson, 1946, 327 U.S. 582, 66 S. Ct. 761, 90 L. Ed. 873.
The purpose of the National Act and that of the Labor Management Relations Act is to prevent interference with interstate commerce, to promote labor harmony. A right under the Federal Constitution, the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, should be protected from molestation, interference and obstruction. The action of the State Board and Council interfere with that right. The result cannot be measured in money damages.
Such action is beyond the power of Council and the State Board
Furthermore, as to the prayer for declaratory judgment an averment as to irreparable injury is not required.
We are fully cognizant of the cases which hold that the Federal Court should be reluctant and hesitant to interfere with proceedings of State administrative agencies.
We respect the able and distinguished counsel for the State Board and his scholarly briefs, but we do not here agree with the conclusions stated therein.
What answer may be made and evidence offered we do not know, and therefore here and now make no final decision until opportunity is afforded to answer and offer testimony.
We do, however, here decide that the motion to dismiss be denied.
An order to that effect will be handed down this date. Meanwhile the temporary injunction will be continued
N.B. -- The United States Supreme Court granted review in La Crosse Telephone Corp. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, supra, footnote 13; jurisdiction postponed. 16 L.W. 3311.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in International Union, etc., v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, supra footnote 13. 16 L.W. 3281.