Distinguished
Distinguished by Lay v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 174, 427 Pa. 387 (1967)
” Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U.S. 468, 475 (1955); United Automobile Workers of America v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 351 U.S. 266 (1956); Youngdahl v. Rainfair, Inc., 355 U.S. 131 (1957); City Line, supra. This exception is clearly inapplicable here.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Eagen:
The able and scholarly majority opinion correctly states the- law. That a clarification in this difficult field was urgently needed is clearly indicated by the numerous cases .presented to this Court in recent months, which patently manifest existing confusion in the minds of the-bench and bar on the jurisdictional question involved. ...A reading of the record of the present proceeding in the court below proves the point beyond argument.
However, after very careful consideration, I cannot join in the majority opinion because I believe the record does, not support the facts . recited therein. The testimony does not establish that the serious acts of violence complained of were committed by the defendants. Their guilt cannot be assumed because of suspicious circumstances. The only acts, which the evidence connects with the defendants, are of a very trivial nature. The right to an injunction must be clearly established. It should not issue on the basis of guess or conjecture. See, Terrizzi Bev. Co. v. Local Union No. 830, 408 Pa. 380 , 184 A. 2d 243 (1962).