# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Carpenters Local Union No. 345 v. Rubin > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385601_1723%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1964 - **Citation:** 377 U.S. 991 ## Text € . See ee . ‘1 Office Supreme Court, U.S: mean Berd, as. 2 6 te MAR 2 1964- , ——. - he Pit F. DAVIS, CLERK IN. THE . SUPREME — OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1963 No. 95 i - on I CARPENTERS LOCAL. UNION NO. 345 OF THE. UNITED ‘BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF. -AMERICA, and. H. A. KELLUM, PRESIDENT, OTTO » _ SCHLAFER, BUSINESS AGENT, “na Sy SS , abe Petitioners, , a _VS. : HOWARD RUBIN, d/b/a, “HOWARD RUBIN CT fe AND. COMPANY, Pater Respondents. : 8 “ee . . PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE o CHANCERY COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE @ _? e eid 2 \ ANTHONY: J. SABELLA 1401 Columbian Mutual — Memphis, Tennessee 38103 Attorney for Petitioners E. L.-Menpantgit, INnc., 1108 Oak Street, Kansas City, Mo 64106. HArnson 1-302% we \ | ‘ i so * : __ INDEX 8pinions Below ae OR aIe EE ee Soe ee: ares NEON ze a 2 Jurisdiction atts nema aces siesmancebeteiins aces a Questions Presented: 20.020 .0..ccccseesseteeseeeseeeee. ace eS ak ee eae oD cs yes A LI NITES. OOS AEE ws 2 SUMO anna gan tana nae nt Bieedocenenennnntcnetenneenentnseenenneceense *G Reasons 1 for ‘Granting the Writ secsleneepiiencetaempngelaassucclseuies eS, aA Conclusion Sy raalenb ioe re SaconenaaN ilar cisposas lacs Ls esiinan canna golagie i ee Gow : ‘ Appendix A, Statutes Involved) ..o(..c} ogee Al Appendix B, Petition for Writ of: Pr and Other ; vege Fess secieaied chan enninhecaistakcobtiaaenicemdomacuaancn ace aad ee | va | ea ok : ; me ‘ » a CITATIONS — i Cases: eh i ee ees _ Liner v. - Ja§co;- Inc... eee te oy OA S. Ct. 391, | - 48- Tee I cc es Mee 4 Local No. 438, Construction and General Laborers Union v..Curry, 371. U.S. 542... a Cenk Nee eer g ne 4 \ IBEW v. Farnsworth and Chambers; 353 US. 969 rae San Diego Building Tra¢les v. Garmon: 359. U.S. 236 a6 -; Statutes: eek National Labor_-Retatigns” Ket, A Ke Amended (29 “U.S.C., Section 151, et ____ BBDRUaS Osean teens Fen ee A Al Tennessee Code’ Annotated ee Mo a pone A2 y. _ Tennessee Code Annotated 27- 801 peas! » cksea vases A2 F . Y . % of - IN THE * ~ SUPREME count OF OF THE UNITED STATE : * 3 =e! pc — ’ bt i? 2 :” OCTOBER TERM, 1963. 7 CARPENTERS LOCAL UNI ION NO. 345 OF THE UNITED a *. BROTHERHOOD ‘OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, and H. A. KEELUM, PRESIDENT, OTTO. ‘CHLAFER, BUSINESS SENT, ; Petitioners, . *. pg vs "HOWARD ‘RUBIN; d/b/a, HOWARD RUBIN / &ND COMPANY, y/ Respondents. ine he £ . - . % ad “ . ‘ aa ee \ . . ; \ “4° ° Noe,/ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE : NCERY COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, ‘ TENNESSEE us fae : arpenters: Local Union No. 345 of ‘the U, United Broth- 7 erhdod of ‘Carpenter$ and Joiners of America, fi. A. Kellum, Writ of Certiorari issue to review the judgment and order of the Chancery Court of Shelby County,.Tennessee, The Supreme Court of Tennessee has: denied the petitioners’ petition for a Writ of Certiorari to review the order and judgment of the Chancery Court of Shelby County, Ten- nessee.+ ? President and Otto Schlafer, Business Agent, pray that a- =) ‘ ” ai : ° c % OTE vast ete org om ote ; ® s “ aa ‘ o . © OPINIONS BELOW & | The ‘Supreme Court of ‘Tennessee shinee no “opin- “icf, ineits denial- of the Writ but noted: on. the ‘petition. °, “Petition. denied: White, J., March 12, 1964” (App. B, AD). ie The Chancery Court of Shelby Gounty did not ite ‘an opinion but in its decree foynd that picketing violated Tennessee Right- To- Work. Law and it had jurisdiction . over * this matter ag 14). ua Sue owe, * JURISDICTION. oh * “The davis of the Chancery Court of Shelby Goanty. oe Tennéssee, was entered on February 10, 1964: The Su- ’ preme Court of Tennessee denied the Writ on March f2, -1964. The jurisdictions of this Court is, involved under ’ “98 U.S.C. 1257 ( 3). 2 . 2 a ° yee “qvesTIONs PRESENTED 6 * 1. May a state court. assume jurisdiction | of. “Peace, ful picketing undér ‘its “Right-To-Work” statute ‘(Termes-* see Code Annotatcd 50-209) ‘where thé picketing is ‘an arguable violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as amen 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) or protected concerted activity unc nat statute. rage : \STATUTES INVOLVED? ¢ the aa MF "provisions of: the National Labor Re- tations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C., Section 151 et seq., are set forth in 1 Appendix A. ne : oe as "STATEMENT Of THE CASE ee ° mea Petitioner labor organization , is a labor organization, * engaged in collective bargdining with building contkactors in and around Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee}" The individual petitioners are the ‘main execgtive officers of the labor organizatign., ‘Respondent. is a building contrac- ter engaged in the construction of a 96 unit epualenanae ——- (R. CER aes oe =On January 00: 1964, the: cicisiiaad filed his orighiial Ze bill for injunctive. relief against petitioners seeking an in- juhetion to restrain petitioners. and any members, agents, servants or employees fr om. further picketing of any kind (Re 3). : The bill spectlicaily alleged that thé picket signs : aed ' “Men:bers of the Carpenters Local +345 are not employed by Howard Rubin & Company on this job; that the puf- “pose of said signs and_said: pickets are to cause the, com- plainant to discharge all its snon-union labor and to force your complainant to hife’in their stead only union labor,’ (R. 2). , it further alleged that the picketing was “to calyse and britig about a ynion. shop-. > in Slap caper of Section 50- 209, Tennesseé. Coce, Afnotated . *-(R. 3). Oni Februar 3; 1964, ‘petitioners’ filed a swort ‘answer and plea in abatement iri which it was averred that the = ‘construction project directly ‘affected interstate commerce and therefore was within the ‘ex@fusive jurisdiction of” the _ National Labor ‘Relations Board (R. 6). Petitioners denied that the object ‘of ‘thie picketing was to cause. re- spondents to discharge Mts non-union employees, averred that it was: tor“the ‘purpose ‘of: advising’ the public that. - respondent did not ey members of the petitioner “labor organization R. ef, -P Ye of ; ” os. ee o ; . * . a *4° ! ' Petitioners averred that the Chancery Court did not . - have. a ‘of the subject matter of. the bill because - : £2 anige - OF. protected « concerted activities “cfecing inter- = 3 _prayefl for distnissél of the bill because of the lack of juris- a P i 7 ‘The perien Court, as is : its customary procedure, consideted the matter’on bill and-dnswer, assumed juris- diction ‘on the basis of the Tennessee Right- To-Work® Law | q@ and ished its ingunction restraining all picketing (R. 14). On February 24, 1964, petitioners sought review of | ans CHancery ‘Court order: and judgment - -because it ex- ee “ceed ts jurisdiction. as it had a right to | tinder Tennes- | - see Cade Annotated 27- 801 (App. A, A2)\ On March ) 1964, by notation-on the petition for Writ of Certiorari, the ‘o writ vas denied (App. B, AS). . “Ths tere: is a final order asserting jurtediction over a subject matter which is beyond the power of thé state | court and instead is within the. exclusive jurisdiction of tite ‘National Labor Relations Board. / . REASONS ono GRANTING THE WRIT Y ieee ; St sp ted : ’. A. The foregoing facts readily reveal that the decision ~ of the Cdurt below is in direct conflict w ith the decisions “of this Co San Diego Building Trades v. Garmon, 359 _ - US. 236: IBEW v. Farnsworth and Chambers, 353 U.S. ’ 969; Local No. 438, Coristruction. and General ° Laborers Union v. ‘Curry, 371 U.S. 542; Liner v. Jafco, Inc., US Pi.” - / cuxdpncy O48. Ct. B01, 48 Le. Par. 50,985 (decided January 7 | 6, 1964). The Tennessee Cotirt, in constituting itself a . Fy ’ . . 2 ‘+ . or » ° » ° . > ‘ a a . > e : s & ’ . . . ° ° : ta . . aa . . ° : . ° . bd m « = . 5: ‘forum ‘for deciding facts.and effectuating a remedy aris- ing out of acts and conduct whichwere “arguable” -ungair labor practices’ or, pretect either oncerted activity, has’ asserted jurisdictionsin an area Bhich is within thé « ex: - clusive province of the National Labor. Relations’ Board. The attitude of the: Tennessee Court: towards this labor controv ersy and the procedure used to implement such : has produced . incompatible and. conflicting . and adjudicaticn at variance with the clear intent of the contr oversy * National Labor Relations Act; as. amended, cf. San mee wBuilding Trades v. Garmon, supra. . . Gat B. The only basis asserted .below for ‘assumption of jurisdiction is that the picketing is, or. may. also be a vio- lation of the, Tennessee Right- To-Wark. Law. '. Farngwor. . ie General Laborers Union v. Curry, supra. This Court © aye? considered and rejected this precise contention in IBEW and C hambers and Local $38, Construction, “da The temporary injunction herein is as fina] on Board. Hor the a A set: forth, it is respectfully Lubmitted . ‘Jafco, Inc., CONCLUSION Supra. If: ‘permitted to stand it . Local’ 438, ‘Construction and General Laborers! Union v. Curry and Liner ¥. that this a iM: for Writ of Certiorari Should be granted, — Respectfully ibiniteed ¢ ee ee eee et See rer ae ‘ANTHONY Je “SABELLA 1461 Columbian ‘Mutua! Tower Memphis, | Tennessee 38103 Attorney for Petitioners a - the issue of jurisdiction as any final prder can be ‘and is rev iewablé as. any final order. “would -erode the national labor policy requiring ‘the sub-. ject midtter to be “heard by the Nationa! Labor _Rel lations \ See ¢ - APPENDIXA ... | ta _ Statutes Involved a oe ° National Labor Relations Act, as amended, . 29 USC., Section 151 et seq . 3 Rights of * Employees , @ “Section 157. Emplgyees shall have te right to self- ofhenieation. to form, join, or.@ssist labor organiza- tions, to ‘bargain collectively ‘through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activ- : Tties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other | \ mutual aid or protection, and shall,alsc shave the right to refrain frém any or all of such activities except to the ex- ‘tent that such right may be affected by an agreement re- quiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employ ment as authorized in Section. 158 (a) (3) of this title. aa, ¢ Unfair abor Practices “Section 158. (b) (2). To cause or attempt to cause ‘ an employer to discriminate against" ‘an employee in \vio- lation of subsection (a) (2 tof this,;section or to’ ‘discrimi- nate against an employee with respect to whom’ member- shtp in such ortaniz zation has been denied or terminated on some grounu other than his failare to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fee uniformly yequired as. a cendi- tion ob acquiring or retairting rem bership. | . Section 158 ee . ..Memphis,- Tennessee * 5 geo i os eaten. Please take notice that : will present the above ‘artd’: j foregoing petition tothe Supreme Court of Tennessee, or one of the Justices,-in Nashville, Tennessee on the 24th: dav of February, 1964, at 9:30 o'clock A.M., and seek the relief prayed for sa ’ ” Nn CERTIFICATE. OF SERVICE. - ar f, Anthotiy ‘13. Sabella, Attorney for - petitioners in this cause, hereby: certify that I have served a copy of the above and: foregoing petition upon Al H: Thomas, Esq., by aelivering a copy of the same-to him at his office in’ thee $1 Madison Building. Memphis, Tennéssée, ‘this 20th. day of: Februar’. 1964. < ‘ ./S/ Anthony J- Sabella ; ‘ - Anthony J grabella, Petition denied. ! - White, J. | ~ | Sa ee March 12, 1904 2 ae oe --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385601_1723%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.