# Kaiser v. Price-Fewell, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · June 4, 1962 · 235 Ark. 295

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9772686

## Case

- **Full name:** Kaiser v. Price-Fewell, Inc.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** June 4, 1962
- **Citations:** 235 Ark. 295; 359 S.W.2d 449; 50 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2531; 1962 Ark. LEXIS 571
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Smith
- **Judges:** Johnson, Harris, Smith, Ward
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9772686

## Opinion text

George Rose Smith, J., dissenting. In the construction industry a contractor must utilize the skills of maiiy specialized craftsmen, such as bricklayers, concrete finisliers, plumbers, electricians, painters, roofers, etc., but most of them work upon a particular job for only a few days or even a few hours. It is plain enough that a small contractor cannot maintain upon his payroll, as full-time employees, all these specialists. Hence it is desirable that some central labor pool be maintained, so that each contractor can call for the various skilled workmen as he needs them. Such an arrangement is not only advantageous to the contractors; it also affords the workmen access to whatever jobs are available in their field. Hence the hiring hall fills a definite need in the building industry. According to this record, the electrical workers ’ union maintains the only existing hiring hall in this craft in Pulaski county. No other agency, public or private, has undertaken to perform this necessary function in the construction business.
The union sought to include in its labor contract a provision for the recognition and continued existence of this hiring hall. The contract was fair on its face, in that it permitted the employer to reject any applicant for employment. Certainly the proposed contract met the standards suggested for such agreements in National Labor Rel. Board v. Mountain Pac. Chap. of Assoc. Gen. Contractors, 9th Cir., 270 F. 2d 425 .
It is obviously possible that the hiring hall might be conducted with discrimination, so that non-union electricians would not be given equal opportunities for employment.. But this record contains not a sentence, not a word, not a syllable, of testimony to show that this •hiring hall is to be used as an instrument of discrimination. I am very much afraid that the effect of the majority opinion is to outlaw the hiring hall, a useful device, in all instances, even though the terms of the proposed contract appear to be wholly fair and nondiscriminatory. For these reasons I would reverse the decree.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9772686. Public record. Not legal advice.