Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LINK BELT COMPANY v. LOCAL UNION NO. 118 AMERICAN FEDERATION TECHNICAL ENGINEERS (07/01/64)

July 1, 1964

LINK BELT COMPANY
v.
LOCAL UNION NO. 118 OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 19, Jan. T., 1965, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, No. 64-5323, in case of Link Belt Company v. Local Union No. 118 of American Federation of Technical Engineers, American Federation of Technical Engineers, Local Union No. 14 of Office Employees International Union et al. Decree affirmed.

COUNSEL

Daniel L. Quinlan, Jr., for appellants.

Ray J. Schoonhoven, of the Illinois Bar, with him Gilbert P. High, John D. o'Brien, and High, Swartz, Childs and Roberts, and Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, of the Illinois Bar, for appellee.

Before Bell, C.j., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.

Author: Roberts

[ 415 Pa. Page 123]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS

On May 4, 1964, employees represented by appellant labor unions went on strike against their employer, Link Belt Company, appellee. On May 12, appellee brought an action in equity against appellants in order to obtain a preliminary injunction prior to hearing and a permanent injunction thereafter restraining alleged mass picketing. The complaint averred that defendants "formed and caused to be formed mass picket lines at all of the entrances and

[ 415 Pa. Page 124]

    exits to Plaintiff's property, including railroad sidings, and, by physical force, intimidation, threat of force, by jeers, vile, obscene, threatening and abusive language, and by the interposition of their persons have maliciously conspired to prevent the passage of vehicles and pedestrians, and by such action have thus barred other employees, supervisory personnel, customers, suppliers, and other persons lawfully desiring so to do from coming upon or leaving plaintiff's property in pursuit of plaintiff's business. Plaintiff attaches hereto and makes a part hereof the affidavits of divers persons in support of the allegations contained in this Complaint." (Italics in the original.)

Basing its action upon the complaint, injunction affidavits and the bond,*fn1 the court below granted a preliminary injunction. The order restrained appellants from interfering with employees of appellee by mass picketing, threats, coercion, etc., from preventing access to appellee's plant by mass picketing, threats, etc., and from conspiring with others to interfere with or injure, by force or numbers, the conduct of appellee's operations. The order also limited the number of pickets to three per plant entrance and set a hearing for the next morning to determine whether the injunction should be continued pending final disposition of the matter.

A motion to vacate was dismissed. After the hearing, the preliminary injunction was continued. Appellants appeal from the grant of the injunction and from its continuation.

Appellants' principal contention is that the Act of June 9, 1939, P.L. 302, § 1, 43 P.S. § 206d, which amends the Labor Anti-Injunction Act of June 2, 1937, P.L. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.