Jurisdictional Statement — Local No. 8-6, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union v. Missouri

Supreme Court brief1960

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

[— FILE COPY | pam

MAR tf

ii “9: | py

* iS THE :

Supreme Court of the United States —

Ocronen Tekm, 1998.

, hOWAL NO. s-6, GIL. CHEMECAL AND ATOMIC

WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-

ClO, ET aL., ;

) . ; ‘ Appellants,

‘Os.

STATE OF MISSOURI,

Appell ‘

. “ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURP OF MISSOURI

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

; Mozart G. Ratner,

( Jacons AND RATNER,

~2O1 North Wells Street,

Chicago, THlinois,.

Morris J. Levin,

$12 Olive Street,

* St. Louis, Missouri,

) ; Attorneys for Appellants. .

TE GUNTHORP. WASREN PR WONG ComPANY, De cage we se

res 5 page

Opinions Below, Pry Pr ree ree Se yp oar ae

Jurisdiction ......-. ee eae Mare ae eee a en pre 2

Question Presented re ee es ities ie waees 2

Statutes Involved .........-. Pie pik ew ete tg eee ea 3

Statement Pe Na ce erate Ac ola Se aeah WC Was ae RL 3

The Statutory Scheme by Whie h Missouri Out-

town Strikes in Public Uilities....:.... nea vais 3

B. The Missouri Statute Is Applied to Outlaw a

Strike by Employees and-Representatives of Km-

ployees of Laclede Gas Company... 5.5 5----++>

i. Proceedings Below ............5 2.552 55555 tne

The Question: is Substantial.0.... 0 ..-- 5+: ee ae

Conclusion

Appendix

DW le ele eee ae SO SS LCS CC MO SIE SSR A eee

“de at hae a ae ew eS SS ES RS Se

AUTHORITIES CITED.

Cases.

Amalgamated Ass’n of Street, ete. v. Wisconsin Em-

ployment Relations Board, 3840 U.S. 888.000... 10, 11, 12

Burrell v. Martin, 282 F.2d 33. .........0.0...0.4.. 12, 8

Franks Bros. Company v. National Labor Relations

ee Oe ave yaw eve beaevneet ces 13

Harris v. Battle, 348 U.S. 808.000.0002... eee 13

Interstate Co. Comm'n vy. Hoboken sere R. C6., 520:

ee rare in Luan 12

Local 24, ete. v. Oliver, 358 U.S. 288....0...000..0.. * 2

National Labor Relations Board vy. Mexia Textile Mills,

Ine., 889 U.S. 5608....... SAD tert ar SP SS eee ee Ip

Oklahoma City Vv. Sanders, 94 FY, 2d 322 (CA. 1)... 08

Rider v. Julian, 282 8S. W. alti Ce Orta 1]

Southern Pacifie Terminal Co: vy. Interstate Commerce

C ommission, 8 ere fos es 14

Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Comm. Comm., 219

Se Sey a dig h op eis coer ers eke ep ees eee KO 12

State ex rel. State Board 6f Mediation v. Pigg, 362 -

Mo. 798, 819, 2448. W. 2d 75.02 eet: ne

United States v. Aluminum Company of America, 148 _

eR Deg png oa os ook see we FD ay 14

United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., 307 Us S$. 533, ... A

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association

166 U.S. 290 2.2... cee ees oes 1

Walling v. Helmerick & Payne, Ine., 823 U.S. 37... 13

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579

ill

Statutes.

“Code- of Virginia, Chapter 17, Title 56; Acts of As-

sembly, 1952, Chapter 696, © 56-509, 56-528. 00.0... | a

King-Thompson Act, Ch. 295, R. S. Mo., 1949. a aatoas 2.49 .

CN Pett tere edert ees eee 3

Section 295.020¢1) ....:.......00e ec. iccte nea Ae

Section 295.180(1)... 2.0.6... 4 0 eee Ce epee |

ON SED oc cese cers cee ees ess eg ee ees 3,4

te CI Sooo Gine ce ty dea wig ea ia

Section 20200(2) .. 2... ecu ceeees Lee ieee

Section 295.200(3) ........ ENE hae Pee ee i 4,8

Section DADE)... wees eer ee eee mane 4,8

Section 295.200(6) .........6..... Pe ea EN 4, %.

National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 186, 29 UL S.C.

Gg” eee ere pee eee cece ee ene eees 2,8, 60

United States Code, Title 28 © 1257(2). 0. .........55. ?

NT com nap

IN THE

Supreme. Court of the United States

Octroner Term, 195 8.

No. _

LOCAL NO. 8-6, OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC

WORKERS INTERN ATION Al. UNION, AFL-

CIO, eT aL,

j Appelleants.

bad vs. x ;

STATE OF MISSOURI, -: me

Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI.

J URISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

Appellants appeal ‘from the judgment of the Supreme

Court-af Missouri, affirming as modified a final judgment °

of the Cireuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, and

submit this Statement to show that the Supreme Court

| of the United States has jurisdiction of the appeal and

that'a substantial question is -presented.

OPINIONS BELOW.

The oral opinion of the Cireuit Court, City of St. Louis

(R. 261-262),. Appendix A, pp. 15-16, infra, is not. offi-

clally reported. Its decree (R. 263-265), and order amend- -

ing decree (R. 285.286), are printed as Appendices’ B and C,

respectively, pp. 17-19, 20-21, infra. The opinion of the Su-

by me Court of Missouri, as amended, Appendix D, pp:

2-48, infra, is reported.at 317 S. W 2d 309,

E ; iiaaias ai )

The highest court of Missouri,. rejecting contention:

based on the Constitution of the United States, held val:.

the seizure-no-strike provisions of a Missouri statute pop

ularly known as the King-Thompson Act. The opiniv:

‘of the Supreme Court 6f Missouri was entered Septen.

ber 29, 1958, and its order modifying opinion and ove

ruling appellants’ petition for rehearing was entered No

vember 10, 1958 (R. 488). Appellants’? notice of appea.

was filed in the Supreme Court of Missouri on Jannat

23, 1959; Jurisdiction to review the decision by direc

appeal is explicitly conferred on this Court by Title 2s.

United ‘States Code § 1257(2).

QUESTION PRESENTED.

Whether ee may, consistently with the Nationa

Labor Relations Act, Article VI of the Constitution of th

United States and the Fourteenth Amendment, apply t

employees of a privately owned gas company wath alfect-

interstate commerce and to their collective bar gainiig ad

resentatives a statute which provides that in the event o!

a threatened'or actual strike the State may ‘‘také posses

sion’’ of the ‘* public utility’’ and which makes it unlaw!::

for employees: of the Company after such ‘taking’ '

strike.

STATUTES INVOLVED.

Relevant provisions of the King-Thompson Act (Ch. 2!

R.S. Mo., 1949) are summarized , below -and the entir

Act is printed in Appendix “F, vifra, pp. 49-59. Relev

ant provisions of the National Lahor Relations Act i

ype 136, 29 FS... § 141, et seq.), are printed j in Appendis

F, infra, pp. 60-62.

ae STATEMENT.

A. The Statutory Scheme by Which Missouri Outlaws

Strikes in Public Utilities.

The King-Thompson Act declares (Seetion 295.010) that

‘heat, light, power, sanitation, ‘transportation, communi

cation, and Water are life essentials of the people’’ and: -

that ‘the possibility of labor strife’’ in industries sup-

piving these services, defined as “public utilities’ (See-

tion 295.020(1)), ‘tis a threat to the welfare and health

of the people’*. The Act further declares that the “State’s

regulation of the labor relations affecting sueh-public utili-

ties is necessary in the public interest," (Section 295.010.)

Section 295.180(1) provides that if a strike, lockout or

‘work stoppage oecurs which, in the opinten of the Gov-

ernor, ‘threatens to impair the operation of the utility

eo as to interfere with the public interest, health andl

welfare’’, the Governor may ‘‘take immediate possession”

of the utility. Seetion 295.180(2) provides that seizure may

ocetir,after investigation and proclamation by the Cover-

nor that *‘there is a threatened or actual interruption of

the operation of such publié utility as the result of a labor

_ dispute, a threatened or actual strike, * * * that the

publie interest, health and welfare are ‘jeopardized, and

~that the oxercise of such authority is necessary: to insure

the operation of such public utility * * -°.”’

Section 295,200(1) provides that ‘‘after any plant, equip-

- ment or facility has been taken over by the state under

this chapter’ it ‘‘shall he unlawful for any person, em-

ployee or representative *** tovcall, incite, support or par:

teipate in any strike or concerted refusal to work for any

uttlity or for the state * * * as means of enforcing any

demands against the -utility. or against the. state.’ Vio-

lation entails the following consequences: .A publie utility

“may not employ any person or employee who has pa

ticipated in a strike affer seizure except ‘tas a new «

ployee’* (Section 295.200(2)); for each day after sein

that a labor organization or labor union allows a sire, -

’ which it has called, incited or supported to continue,

es # 3

**shall forfeit and pay to the state of Missouri tl, -

sum of ten thousand dollars " * *

civil action in the name of the state * * °7? (Seetion 2

200(3)); every union officer who supports a strike aft

seizure forfeits and must pay to the State one thousa

to be recovered !

- dollars (Section 295.200(4)). In addition, the courts «

Missouri are empowered ‘to enforce by injunction «.

other legal or equitable remedies any provision of th:

chapter * * *."" Section 295.200(6).

Section ,295.180(2) provides that any public — utili:

‘*taken’’ under_the provisions of the Act ‘thy reason of”: .

a labor dispute ‘‘shall be returned to the owners thereot a

soon as practicable after the settlement of said- labo

dispute’’.

B. The Missouri Statute Is Applied to Outlaw a Strike

by Employees and Representatives of Employees 0!

Laclede Gas Company.

Laclede’ Gas Company, a private corporation, herel-

after called the. Company, is engaged in furnishing natura.

vas to industrial, commercial and domestie users in th

St. Louis area (R. 30-31). Its dperations affect intersta’

commerce within the meaning of the National Labor It:

lations Act (R. 400-401; 52-60).

Local 8-6, Local 8-109, and Local 8-194, Oil, Chemica

and Atomie Workers International Union, hereinstt

called the Loeals, are labor umons which, under NERD

certifications, represent various units of Laclede’< en -

i) ys

ployees CR. 396. 61-62, 139, 143-144, 146-147).' Historic

ally, contracts between the Locals and the Company predi

eate valuable employee benefits upon recognition of: seni-

ority in employment yvith the Company (R. 148-152, D.

Exh. F. Gand H).) More than sixty (60) days prior to

June 36, 19856), the expiration date of the then current

-vollective: bargaining contracts, the Loeals notified La

clede of their desire to negotiate improved terms and con.

ditions. In issue during negotiations were wages, vaca

tions. making of riser connections and the like’ (R. 397;

H5-147, 154-156, 79) 194-195, 196-197, 205-208). Pur

suant to the provisions of the. National Act, the Locals

timely notified both the Federal Mediation and Coneilia

tion Service and the Missouri State Board of Mediation

of the existence of a labor dispute on these issues (KR.

307+ 195-198, 242)- Negotiations continued through June

0), 1956 TR. BOT: ZOS-209). When the old contract ex

pired Withont agreement having been reached, the Lo-

cals went on strike CR. 397, 156-157, 209-210).

On July 3, 1956, Daniel C. Rogers. Chairman of the

State Board of Mediation (R. 242), who, unlike officials

of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, had

made no. mediation or conciliation efforts in the dispute

(R..243, 245), met with officials of the Loeals and urged

them to eall off the strike and return to work, stating

that otherwise the Governor would be obliged to invoke

the seizure law (R. 245-246). .

On July 5, 1956, Governor Phil M. Donnelly issued a

Proclamation and two Executive Orders (R. 3897; 11-13-15,

20, 81) declaring that a labor dispute existed between

Laclede and the Locals; that as a result Laclede’s em-

wl: Local $-6 represents the physical” workers, Local 8-109 rep-

resents foremen, and Local S194 represents clerical workers (R.

39692). At all material times. each Local was in compliance with

= relevant provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act) CR) 137-138, 205-

204 aC :

6 .

ployees were on strike; that the strike threatened to inter

rupt Laclede*s operations; that ‘tthe public interest, health

and welfare are jeopardized as a result of the threaten!

interruption’’; and that seizure under Seetion 295.18:

Was ‘‘neéessary to insure’? Laclede's ‘operation’. By

Kxeeutive Order No. 1, the Governor took ‘* possession’ 0:

Laclede’s facilities. By Executive. Order No. 2) (Ro 30s:

81), the Governor-appointed Daniel C. Rogers agent of th:

Governor to exercise the Governor's authority witli respec

‘to the seizure. The Order provided that all of Laclede’.

“rules and regulations ?

Management and organization of the Company and it-

«duties and responsibilities shall remain in foree and +f.

fect throughout the term of operation by the State of

Missouri’? (R. 398).

On the evening of July 5, 1956, Rogers, on behalf o!

the Governor,made a television broadcast concerning th:

effects of the seizure (R.-160, 169, 249)) 0 He stated that

despite the seizure the striking employees were employees

of the Laclede Gas Company, not of the State of Missouri

(R. 170); that they will report to work, when they wish to.

do so, to the Laclede Gas Company" (R. 171): that <inee

they remain employees of Laclede. the State of Misspuri ha

no responsibility for their protection in the event of indus

trial injury or occupational disease and ‘that only Laeled

Gas Company is responsible therefor and for their coverag

under the Unemployment Aet and the Social Seeurity Ae

(R. 171). He stated further that under seizure the on

_ployees were required to continue to render services to

Laclede Gas Company; that ‘tthe obligation and respons:

bility falls upon the employees to stay at their jobs te’

enable the Company ‘tto render its publie utility: services

to the people’? (R. 172). He acknowledged that avecordin:

to the Supreme Court of Missouri **seizure under the King

Thompson Act ix token seizure’ (R. 174): addinre STdont

governing the internal

run the company or give the people any orders or anything

-of any kind. They are not working for me. Lam merely

the agent of the State here representing the Governor to

observe and see to it that the property of the Laclede Ga-

Company is available for operation... The er ployees, of

course, are supposed to operate the property under the dir-

vetions of the Laclede Gas Company itself" CR. 174)2 See

also R.SO-S4 Rogers further stated that As of four o'clock

today’, Central Standard Time, five o'clock your time, the

Proclamation and Executive Orders went into effect. and

from that time on the employess are in violation of the law

which provides that it shall be unlawful if, after seizure.

they engage ina strike. So they are in violation of the

. *

law as of this time

The emplevees, when the time -

arrives of a showing of resistance to the law, forfeit their

seulority’’ (R. 174). He said that not only do the ‘em.

plovees forfeit their seniority rights’? (R. 254). but that

2 At the hearing in-this case. which began July Vocand ended

July 13. 1956, Rogers gestified that his seizure of the Laclede Gas .

properties consisted solely of delivering to the Company the Gov-

ernor’s proclamation ard Exeeutive Orders: that. he ‘never Was in’

* the Laclede offices except that one time, and haven't been back

since’*: ‘that the State of Missouri is not * * * operating the

Laclede Gas Company ': that Laclele, not the State of Missouri

collects the receipts from the operations: that natural was is pur-

ehased by Laclede Gas Company, not by the State; that neither he

her-anvone else on hehalf of the State or the Governor of the State

Was signing vouchers, disbursement slips, cheeks,. or any other,

orn

evidence of debt. or authorization for payment of debt CR. 255)

that he did not have a Social Security number and did net intend

Jeapply for one as an employer. of euiployees of Laclede Gas Com-

pany CR. 256) that he has net put up any signs, notices, or any-

thing else on the name plate or other Company identifications of its

Properties (R. 256): that none of the properties of Laclede Gas

Company have been conveyed. transferred or turned over to him

In anyeway (R. 256); that. the Chairman of the Board and the

President: were fulfiiling and discharging their functions in these

oPices for the Company: that they had not furnished-any aecount-

Ing or reports’ to the agent of the Governor ‘and were not expected

te account. and that the Superintendent of Production of the

Company continued also. te discharge the duties: of the position

Without reporting or accounting to him OR. 256-257).

. ; y

‘*the Union was subject to a fine of: ten thousand dollar:

a day and * * * the officers are subject to one total

fine of one thousand dollars each’’ (R. 254).

On July 7, 1956, thé State“ot Missouri-filed suit agains:

the Locals, appellants herein, pursuant to Section 295.20

(3) of the King-Thompson Act, to collect: the forfeitures

provided therein for their failure to terminate the strike

following the seizure’ (R. 307-394). As noted by the court

below (R. 399-400), this suit is still pending.

| .

C. Proceedings Below.

On July 9, 1956, the State of Missouri, pursuant to

Section 295.200(6), filed suit in the Cireuit Court, Cits

of St. Louis, to enjoin appellants from = continuing the

strike (R. 399; 2-11). Appellants filed a motion to dis

miss and a petition for declaratory judgment alleging.

inter alia, that the King-Thompson Act, as applied to em

ployees of Laclede and their bargaining agents, is in con

flict with the National Labor Relations Act, Section & of

Article I, Article VI and the Fourteenth Amendment o!

the Constitution of the United States (R. 399; 15-27, 4.

258-260). In support of their petition appellants allege:

that the constitutionality of the statute under which

Governor had acted was in serious doubt; that the Go

ernor threatened to enforce the monetary forfeiture anc

loss of semiority provisions of the statute against appe:

lants and members of appellant unions because of the:

refusal to terminate the strike after the seizure, and the’

in view of the great and irreparable injury to which «

pellants were subjected it was appropriate and neces-a"

3. The State of Missouri also filed suit against the nore

officérs of appellant unions under Section 295.200(4), to collect th,

sums forfeited by them as a result of their failure to call for te

nation of the strike after seizure. This action, like No. 46. mf

still pending in the Missouri courts. .

to resolve the constitutional question by declaratory judg-

ment (R. 209; 26-27). Appellants further alleged that the -

controversy over constitutionality will continue as lony

as the Governor deems himself free to apply the seizure-no

strike provisions to Laclede and to other companies whose

activities alfect interstate commerce; that the’ Governor '-

threat to enforce the Act in.fature labor disputes deprives

defendants and their members and all employees and their

bargaining. agents similarly situated of their rights un-

der the National Labor Relations’ Act and the Constitu-

tion of the United States and that it interferes with the

system of free collective bargaining whie h Congress de.

termined should govern labor relations in these industries

R. 26-27).

The trial court: specifically tound that the defendants

“ineited, supported and participated ji’ a work

stoppage and strike against the Laclede Gas ¢ Company

‘subsequent 10° the seizure CR. 264, 308; 8-9, 21. 183, 268).

It found that this conduet was “unlawful (ahold). The

court issued a declaratory judgment holding the et eon.

“tittitional and granted an injunetion as praved. CR. 263-265,

280-286). On July 14, 1956, the day after the injunction

issned, the strike was terminated (R. 399).

Unappeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, hold.

ing that the seizure-anti-strike provisions of the statute,

as applied to labor disputes involving employers subject

'o the National Act, are constitutional (R. 421). It re-

jected the gontention that because Laclede and the Loeals.

had signed new contracts on August 10, 195 6, and the Gov-

eruor had terminated the seizure on October 31, 195 6, the

case for determination of constitutionality was moot (R.

299.400),

THE QUESTION I8 SUBSTANTIAL.

1. In upholding the seizure-anti-strike provisions of th

King-Thompson Act, the ‘Supreme Court- of Missouri tf

owed the dissent, rather than the sholding and opinion o

the majority of the Supreme Court of the United Star.

in Amatqamated “Ass'n of Street, ete. ve Wisconsin Eo

ployment Relations Board, 340 US. 383. In Amalganiate:

this Court held that Congress deliberately’ preempted t.

field of economic strikes in public utilitie® Whose oper:

tions affect interstate commerce; that) Congress sat

~evuarded against state. infringement the right of eniplove:-

of such utilities to strike, that neither federal oceupatic

of the field nor federal protection of the right to strik

may be subverted by the states on the theory. that <trike-

I local emergencies"

in public utilities create

Qn the premises of the clavalqamated decision the dit

ferences between the Missouri and Wiseonsin statntes

relied upon by Missouri (RR. W73-174) are immaterss

Like Wisconsin, Missouri nullities the federally protects.

Mght to strike. That nullification makes impossible ress

lution of the issues mm dispute through free collective bar’

gaining —-the method relied on by Congress. True, Mi

~ourk, unlike Wisconsin, does not attempt to substitute fo

collective bargaining compulsory arbitration. — But tha’

sharpens rather than mitigates the confliet. Under cor

pulsory arbitration, the issues are resolved at least |

neutrals, not unilaterally by one of the contestants. 1

der the Missouri system, however, seizure imposes:

pressure on the employer to yield to the employers’ d

mands while it leaves the emplovees no choice but to wor

on the employer's terms. Thus, Missouri vests in the ep

plover absolute power to decide and to fix terms and co!

ditions of employment. If Wisconsin's substitute for co

‘lective bargaining is in conflict with federal poliev. « f'

hort, Missouri's must fall. Indeed, Congress squarely

recognized that seizure, like compulsory arbitration, is anti

‘ -thetiea! to collective bargaining. ‘it rejected. both on the

—

werits and not ‘because of any desire to leave the states

free tg adopt it’. tmalgamated ease, S40-0 S. 885, 39,

and rete YT: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. vo Sawyer.

343 US. 879, 586.

Nor is it material that-in Missoari a strike is outlawed

only after exeentive determination that- disruption of op

erations is threatened. Disruption of operations is a nor

inal consequence of strike action. The question i not, as

the Missouri Supreme Court conceived it, whether the

consequences of interruption’ of av publie utility. service

are sueh that exereise of state police power mits be deemed

ceasonable, The question is rather whether Corgress,

by preserving the right of employees of public utilities |

fo strike, and by refusing to exempt publie utilities from,

the industries in which economic strikes are coverned

exelusively liv federal law, preehuded intervenfiou of state

power. This Court answered that question in Amaronrmated

When at rejectod the contention ‘‘that Congress intended,

by silénee, to leave the states free to regulate ‘local emer

genev” disputes. 240 FS. B83 BOR-BOL,

eo the

His not claimed, and in the light of the Missourie Su

preme Court's construction. of the King-Thonipson Aet

sn Ruder vy, Julian, YSZ S. W. 2d 484, 492-496, and the off

clal position.of the State im State 1 rh Mate Board of

Mediation y. Pigg, 362 Mo. 798, 819, 244 8S. WL 2d 75, -S4.

ane In this case CR. 291-252, Pp. OG, supra), it could not be

ap NET Aa RtON on et men

Claimed. that seizure has the effect. of transforming<a

uility’S employees into employees of fhe State or making .

the State their emplover. Thus under this law, seizure

does not even arguably alter the preemptive applicability

of the national Aet.4 —

2. Thé Missouri Supreme Court correctly held that th:

case for declaratory judgment, ripe tor adjudication whe:

the trial court ruled (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. \

Sarmyer, 343 U.S. 579, O86), was not rendered moot: |

termination of the strike pursuant to the “injunetion. su!

sequent execution of contracts between Laclede and th

defendants and @onsequent relinquishment of the seizure

(R.399, 400). As the trial court specifically found (Ro 264),

appellant Loeals continued their strike after the -eizure be

wan from July 5, through uly 14, 1956, in defiance ot

the Missouri Act*s outlawry of such conduct. The Lo

‘als and their officers thereby subjected themselves to th

substantial forfeitures which Missouri is now seeking t

enforce (p. 8, supra). The employees jeopardized their

seniority rights, which remain in doubt. Since liabihity

for substantial penalties and potential loss of senieriey

turn upon the constitaticnality. of! the seizure ne. striks

provisions, it cannot be snegested that the ease for

determining constitutionality is moot. So. Pacifie Co. \

Inferstate Comm. Comm,, 219 US, 483, 452 United State

v. Rock Royal Co-op... BOT US. 533..455-556; Interstate Co

Commu. v. Hoboken Mtgr’s Ro Co, 320, UL S. 368, 578

377; \Amalgqamated Assn, ete. vo Wisconsin Fim ployee

Relations Board, 340 U.S. 416, 417, note 1; Burr Hy

4. Cf Chapter 17, Title 56; Code of: Virginia, Chapter 696, Acts

of Assembly 152, $8 56-509 — 58-528. Accordingly, there ism

o¢easion here to consider the effect of a contention that a state may.

without offending the National Act, through exercise of its pow

‘of eminent ‘domain, become the aefual owner and operator of 4

_ utility, and hence an ‘‘emploever’’ exempt by) virtue of Sections

~ 22) and 203) of the National Act from its limitations. Cf. bes:

ever, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. vo Sawutr, 348 VS. STO, oN

and Local 24, ete. vo Oliver, 358 VS) 2S.

ae ns,

Martin, 232 F. 2d 337 37-39, and note 16 (CL 4. D.C.) ; Okla:

homa City v. Sanders, 94 FB. 2d 825, 825 (CL AL 10)?

Execution of contracts after employees and their bar-

vaining agents have been prohibited from continuing thetr

strike would, not, in any event, render moot the contro. *

versy concerning the constitutionality of the statute which

authorized the prohibition. Settlement of a labor dispute

after the right to strike has been denied is not the prod-.

uct of: free collective bargaining; it is the fruit of the

state's illegal interference with it. Cf. Franks Bros.

Company. . National Labor Relations Board, 321 U.S.

702, 704-705. - Discontinuance of an illegal restraint after

success has made ‘its perpetuation unnecessary, ‘‘does not

operate to remove a case from the ambit of judicial power."

Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., 323 U.S. 37, 43:

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166

US. 290, 808-309, Missouri may not escape review by this

Court of the constitutionality of its intrusion into the pre-

empted field by making execution of .a contract after

seizure the occasion for lifting its strike ban. To hold

otherwise would allow Missouri to play hide-and-seek with

federal supremacy. Cf. National Labor Relations Board.

ve Mexia Tertile Mills, Ine., 8389 U.S. 568, 568.

5. Harris'y. Batth, 348 VS. 803. upon which the suggestion of

“mootness below was predicated, is wholly inapposite. There, no

potential liability of any kind bad been incurred prior to termina-

tion of the seizure. Under the Virginia law seizure has characteris-

ties and consequences entirely different from those here involved.

Thos. under the Virginia Jaw the State undertakes to operate

the utility gua emplover fer its own aecount. Ch. 17. $$ 96-512,

SHDN, 56-520, 56-522. The utility’s employees are under no obli-

gation to apply for or accept employment by the State and their

seniority rights with the utility are unaffected by their refusal to

work during seizure, $8 56-513. -56-514. Neither the Union nor its

officers are required to cal! off a strike after seizure. The only

restraint imposed is that after seizure a anion may not picket or

otherwise attempt to prevent the State fron obtaining employees

or operating the utility. $ 56-517. In the Harris case there was no

claim or finding that appellants had in any way violated the statute.

In view of the pervasive threat to invoke seizure in fu.

ture disputes, termination of the dispute which invoked

‘this seizure could not moot the controversy. Southern

Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission.

219 U.S. 498, 514-516; U nited States v. Aluminum Com.

pany of America, 148 F. 2d 416, 448 (C. A. 2). That

threat itself impairs the. guarantees of .the federal Act

in all industries which’the Missouri Act encompasses. [n

these industries the employees and their bargaiging agents,

contrary to the intention of Congress, cannot formulate

and press. their collective hargaining demands in the ex

pectation that ultimate: resolution’ will depend upon te

outcome of. a conflict of econvmie forces (Cf. R. 177).

to them, the effectiveness of :strike action measures’ “4

imminence: of seizure, not collective bargaining success.

While that situation continues the constitutionality of the

Missouri scheme for! outlawing public utility strikes. re-

mains ripe for adjudication.

CONCLUSION.

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted

that this Court should reverse the judgment of the Su-

preme Court of Missouri.

Respectfully submitted,

Mozart G. Ratner,

: Jacops AND RATNER,

201 North Wells Street,

Chicago, Illinois,

Morris J. Levin,

‘ $12 Olive Street,

; St. Louis, Missouri,

Attorneys for Appellants:

APPENDIX A.

- ORAL OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, CITY OF

\ ST. LOUIS, JULY 13, 1956.

. (R. 261-262.)

I would not say that the legal question involved in this

case is a simple one. I-think it is a narrow-one.. The ques-

tion, as I see it, is whether these provisions-—the seizure

~ provisions—of the King-Thompson Act are constitutional

or not; and [ think that is the only question to be decided

hy me in this proceeding. The only eases | know of that

bear direetly onsthis Act are the Julian case-and the Piag

case. In the Pigg case the court expressly stated that it

Was not passing on the constitutionality of the sections

which are involved here. The other case—the Julian case

as T call it—has nothing to do parficularly with these sec

tions, and the court stated the constitutional question was

not properly raised. That means, then, that [face this

question with no direet authority in this state, | grant that

the Amalgamated case, which has been referred to, throws

doubt on the constitutionality of this Act. However, as I

read the case, and as I read the Wisconsin statute, there

are material differences i in the Wi isconsin Act and this Act.

I think it is a firmly established principle in this state

that a trial court should not declare an act of the General

Assembly unconstitutional without .it being clearly so.

This act was passed by the Gener al Assembly, the repre-

sentatives of the people of this state, after debate and

careful consideration, and it is the law of this state. Ff

consider the Amalgamated case in this connection indirect

‘authority, and not, in my mind, sufficics ntly direct on “the act

involved here to declare it unconstitutional; and, for tha

reason, I will not do so. Close constitutional questions it

general are, of course, to be determined by the upper courts

And, again, I say, unless it is clear to a trial judge that ar

act is unconstitutional he should not declare it so. 1 do not -

feel this is clearly so. Therefore, I am of the opinion tla’

I should rule the act constitutional, and the injunction

should issue. You may prepare a draft for my signature

Your petition for a declaratory inllgiadat of unconstitu-

tionality will be denied.

APPENDIX B.

DECREE.

(R. 263-265. )

On July 14, 1956, the Court duly’ made and. entered of

record the following judgment, order and decree, which

appears in Record 837° at page 235:

‘

. DEcREE.

This cause having been heard heretofore, to-wif, on July

11,12 and 13, 1956, on plaintiff's application ‘for a tem-

porary injunction and on the Order.to Show Cause, hereto-

fore issued by the Court on July 9, 1956, and it having been.’

_ stipulated by and between the plaintiff and the defendants

that the issues on plaintiff’s petition for a permanent in- .

junction should be submitted to the Court for a deei ision on *

the pleadings and on the evidence submitted to the Court

on July 11, 12 and 13, 1956, and the whole matter having

heen duly heard and the cause stihmitfed to the Court, and

- the C ourt being now fully advised in the matter does ‘find

the issues in favor of the plaintiff and against the defend-

ants, and

Whereas, it appearing to the Court that the Governor of

the State of Missouri, pursuant to the authority vested in

him by Chapter 295, R..S. Mo. 1949, and particularly See--

tion 295.180, R: S. Mo. 1949, took possession of the plants,

equipment and all facilities of the Laclede jas. Company,

a public utility, located in the State of Missouri, for the use

and operation by the State of Missouri in the public inter-

est, effective at 4:00 o’clock P. M., Central Standard Time,

July 5, 1956, and

18 ,

Whereas, it appearing to the Court that the defendar

Unions, the defendint Officers of said Unions, and the ¢

fendant Employees of the Laelede Gas Company, ineludin.

the defendants individually named; have incited, supports

and participated in, as a joint and common cause, a wor,

stoppage and strike against the Laclede Gas Company au

ina refusal to work by said defendant employees tor ay

on behalf of the State of Missouri in distributing, sellin.

and furnishing gas to the customérs of Laclede Gas Cor

pany through the plants, equipment and facilities of ti

Laclede Gas Company, all subsequent to the action of th

Governor of the State of Missouri, in taking possession »

the plants, facilities and equipment of the Laclede Ga-

Company, aforesaid, and . |

Whereas, it appearing to the Court that the action of th

defendant Unions, defendant Officers and defendant en:

ployees in inciting, supporting and participating i saic ~

strike and coneerted refusal to work for the Laclede Gas’

CGempany and the State of Missouri after said® plans

equipment and facilities of the Laclede Gas Company ha

béen taken over by the State of Missouri, as aforesaid. >

unlawful, and

Whereas, it appearing to the, Court that the defendaw

Unions, defendant Officers and defendant employees wi.

continue to incite, support and participate in said strik

and concerted refusal to work for the Laclede Gas Cor

pany and the State of Missouri, aforesaid, unle-- ~i

defendants are restrained and énjoined by this Court, «

‘Ipappearing to the Court that the plaintiff i is wither

adequate remedy at law in the premises;

It Is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that said defen:

ants and all other persons to whom notice of this order «

injunction may come, be and they are hereby permanen'”

enjoined and restrained from continuing, inciting, suppor’

ing ‘and par tie] pating in the w ork stoppage, refusal to wors

and trike aforesaid against the Laclede Gas Company or

the State of Missouri.

It Is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that defendants’

petition for a declaratory judgment be denied.

The costs of this proceeding are adjudged against the

defendants. - r : as

Done at the City of St. Louis, Missouri, July 14. 1956.

Ivan Lee Hott, Jr.,

Judge of the Circuit Court for

the City of St. Louis, State of

Missouri.

APPENDIX C.

ORDER OF COURT.

(R. 285-286. )

Plaintiff's motion to.-amend deer... lenied as to Speecit

cation I and granted as to Speeific...on TD as hereinatter

set out. Decree of July 14, 1956, amended by striking

therefrom in the fourth and third lines from the bottom o!

the second page, ‘It is ordered, adjudged and deereed that

defendants’ petition for adeclaratory judgment be denied.”

and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

“Tt is ordered, adjudged, and decreed on defendants”

petition for a declaratory judgment that Chapter 2.

R. S. Mo., 1949, and all portions thereof are valid. et

forceable, constitutional, and not in violation or derogatio:

of the Constitution of the United States or of the Coustity

tion of the State of Missouri; that the acts performed by

Phil M. Donnelly, Governor of the State of Missouri, pu

‘suant to and-under the said Chapter 295, R. S. Me.. 1:4.

are valid and enforceable; that it is unlawful under said

Chapter 295, R. S. Mo., 1949, for the defendants to incits.

support or participate in any strike or Concerted refusal to

work. for the Laclede Gas Company or the State of M>

souri as a means of enforeing any demands against tl

Laclede Gas Company or the State of Missouri so long a

the proclamation and executive orders issued on July 5,

1956, by Phil M. Donnelly, Governor of the State of Mi»

souri, pursuant to the authority conferred upen him |

Section 295.180, R. S. Mo., 1949, seizing the plants, esni

ment, and facilities of the Laclede Gas Company for the m

and operation by the State of Missouri in the public interes

shall remain in force and effect.’’

omnwepapwrersn +

. 21

Defendants’ motion to set aside decree of injunction,

exceptions to decree of injunction, motion for deelaratory

judgment and motion for a new trial, all denied:

Done at the City of ‘St. Louis, Missouri, August 17th,

1956. ,

Ivan Lee Hot, Jk.

Circuit Judge.

APPENDIX D.

IN THE SUPREME Court or Missouri

; _ En Bane.

No, 45,869.

-——w—

In Office of Clerk of Supreme Court, September 20, 195s,

STaTE OF Missouri, , Appeal from the Cir-

Respondent, euit Court of the

rs. , City of St. Louis.

Loca No, 8-6, On, Chemical axp ¢ ———

Atomic Workers INTERNATIONAL Honorable

Union, AFL-CIO, er at, Ivan Lee Holt, Jr..

: Appellants. | Judge.

The defendants have appealed from a judgment of the

Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis enjoining them from

continuing and participating in a work stoppage and strike

against the Laclede Gas Company or the State of Missouri

the plaintiff in the action. The judgment also declared the

Act upon which the action is based, Ch. 295,,R. S. Mo. 1949.

commonly known as the King-Thompson Act, to be Galid

and constitutional. The defendants are officers and men-

bers of Local Unions Nos. 8-6, 8-109 and 8-194. of the Gil.

Chemical and Atomie Workers International Union, AFL-

‘CIO. Laclede Gas Company, a Missouri corporation, is a

operating gas utility engaged in the distribution and sale

of gas in the metropolitan area comprising the City of

St. Iouis and St. Louis County.

On July 1, 1956, Laclede had approximately 2,500 em-—

—_—_-

ployees. Approximately 1,700 production and distribution

workers were represented by Local 8-6. About 100 foremen

were represented by Loeal 8-109, and about 400 clerical

workers. by Loeal 8-194. At all times herein mentioned,

these unions were duly certified by the National Labor

Relations Board as representatives of such employees for

the purpose of collective bargaining.

The expiration date of the labor agreements between

Laclede and its employees was June 30, 195 6, at midnight.

More than sixty days before the expiration date, the em-

ployees, through their representatives, notified the com-

pany of their desire to modify the agreements. Notice of

the labor dispute also was given to the Federal Mediation

and Conciliation Service and to the Missouri State Board

of Mediation. The labor dispute involved wages, vacations,

making of riser connections and other matters. Negotia-

tions for new labor agreements were initiated between the

three loeal unions and Laclede and were continued through

June 30, 1956. When the old contract expired without a

new one being consummated, approximately 1,800) ¢m-

ployees, represented by these three unions, went ou strike

pursuant to a strike vote previously taken. The strike

began July 1, 1956 and picket lines were set up at all offices

aud locations of the company, about 10 in number. About

300 supervisory employees who were not members of these

unions remained on duty and undertook to continue furnish

ing gas to the customers, but service could not be main

tained for reasons hereinafter more*fully discussed,

Qn the afternoon of July 5, 1956, the Honorable Phil M.

Donnelly,’ governor of the State of Missouri, issued a

Proclamation and two Executive Orders which were served

upon the defendants and the managing officers of Laclede.

This Proclamation and the Orders were designed to effect .

the Seizure of the utility and continue its operation in the

public interest by virtue of the authority vested in. the,

governor by the-Constitution and the laws of Missouri, pat

ticularly § 295.180 of the King-Thompson Act. Th

Proclamation declared, after investigation, it was the gov

ernor’s opinion that ‘‘the public interest, health and we:

fare are jeopardized’* because of the interruption ot the

operation of the utility as a result of the labor dispute and

strike and, further, that the exercise of the authority vested,

in the governor: by § 295.180) was necessary to instre the

continued operation in Missouri of the publie utility.

Executive Order No, 1 stated that the governor took pos

session of. **the plants, equipment, and all’ facilities of th

Laclede Gas Company, located in the State of Mi-souz.

for the use and operation by the State of Missouri in th

public interest,"’ effeetive as of 4 o'clock p.im., July 5, 16

The governor's Executive Order No, 2 provided :

“(1) That Daniel C. Rogers. Chairman ef the Missenr.

State Board of Mediation, acting as my agent, is herehy

authorized and directed to take possession of the plant.

equipment and all facilities of the Laclede Gas Cotupany i |

the State of Missouri or such parts of each of said plants.

equipment and facilities as may be necessary for the pur:

pose of carrying out the provisions of this Order, and

effect my Proclamation and Executive Order No. 1 declar

ing the publie interest, health and welfare jeopardized. »

order to insure that the said uuatity above mentioned i

effectively operated in the interest of the people of ths

State to the end that they may have the benefit of necessary

and essential publie utility services.

(2) Said Daniel C. Rogers shall exereise the afore

said authority ius my agent forthwith, and he shall contin

to exercise the aforesaid authority as my agent until an:

unless otherwise directed by me. .

(3) All rules and regulations of the aforesaid utili”

governing the internal management and organization of tl:

company, and its duties and responsibilities, shall femiain

in foree and effect throughout the term of operation by the

State of Missouri.”*

The employees on strike did not return to work when the

yovernor’s Proclamation and Executive Orders were issued

and served upon their representatives, (in uly 1956,

the State of Missouri in its sovereign right, filed suit seek”

ing to restrain and enjoin the defendants from continuing

the strike, basing its detion upon Chapter 295 of the RA Vised —

Statutes of Missouri, and, particularly § 295.1800 and

25.200 and? the governor's Proclamation and Executive

Orders issued pursuant thereto, The defendants’ plead.

ngs, fer alia, attacked the constitutionality ‘Of the King.

Thompson Act and the validity of the Proclamation and

Exeentive Orders of the governor and of his awent actine

thereunder and also sought a’ declaratory jndygment. that

Chapter 295 was unconstitational.

Trial of the case began on July 11, 1956) and coneluded

on uly 13.1956. The Court adjudged and deereed that the

injunetion be issued as prayed and held Chapter 295 was

not unconstitutional and that the Proclamation and Eee

tive Orders issned by the goyernor, pursuant te the anthor

itv conferred upon him by Seetion 205.180, were valid: and -

-enforeible, On July 14, 1956, the dav after jndement Wits

rendered. the striking emplovees returned to work,

Ane curiae urge us te dismiss the appeal on the eround

the case is new moot. Going outside the record as per

mitted for this purpose, State er rel. Donnell vo Searen. *

M40 Mo. 1052, 152 S. W. 2d 8. 10(2), they assert that Laclede

and its employees signed a labor agreement on Angust 10.

18, and that the governor terminated his seizure af. the

utility on October 31, 1956, which was, however. after this

appeal was taken. They contend that the injnunetjon having

Xpired by its own ferms the appeal shonld be chismissed in

accordance with our practice of refusing-to pass-on moot

questions. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendants jor

this request.

Among other cases, the amir curiie cite Preistes

DoherMn3b4 Mo. 506, 265 8S. W. 2d 404, 407 (4), white!

holds: ‘*X question is moot when the questTu presente

fur decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which»

judgment were rendered could not nave auy practieal effec

-upon any then®pxisting controversy." Que factor to}

considered is that seizures of utilities in similar <ifuation-

are likely to occur again and it is in the public interest thie

the question of their validity be determined. Moreover.»

know from our own recores, No. 46,664, State of Miscou

v. Local No, 8-6 et al... that another action, growing out’e!

the same transaction, is pending in-the triak court agains

these defendant unions to assess monetary penaltios om

suant to Section 295.200(3).

Where the matters connected with eo growing out!

the original cause have not been fully and. finally dis

posed of and the questions presented are of public in

portance and likely to recur in the courts ef the state. a

appeal need not’ be dismissed as heing moot although th

immediate controversy ohas~ ceased. to “exist. Shite:

rel, Atchison, 7. £8. 2. Re, Ce. ¥. Trimble. 254M

542, 168. S. We S60, 86201). See also Stequeann v. Wek

TO Mo. 131, 214 S. W. 134, 18562); Morrison v. Hrs

Mo., 231. S. W. 997, 99961); Missouri Electric Power ©

v. Smith, 348 Mo. 788, 155 S. WE 2d WIR LITO): Stites

rel. Chubh ve Sartorius, 301 Mo. oy, 72 8.. 8. 2a Ta,

785(1) Morrison v. State, Mo. App. 202 8S. W. 2h OE, 12

This seems te be consistent with the practice ta fecdera

courts. Walling v. Helmerich & Pann. tah, BSUS. IT 4+

65S. Ct. 11, 89 L. Ed. 29; Southern Pacitte Termine! (

Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U.S. 498. 91

516, 31S. Ct. 279, 55 L. Ed. 310. We believe a juste

able controversy is) presented in’ the circumstances +

——

this ease. We reject the suggestion that the appeal should

he dismissed as moot.

Ninety-nine per cent of the product distributed by

Laclede was natural gas, all of which came from Louisiana

or Texas. Natural gas was taken from. pipe lines and

put directly into the distribution system or in’ storage.

In addition to other methods, Laclede maintains an under-

ground storage reservoir in St. Louis County capable of

accommodatin® in excess of two billion feet of gas. Large

‘ quantities of pipe fittings, meters and other supplies and

products were also purehased by Laclede from outside

the State of Missouri. For the year ending December 31,

1055. Laclede's gross revenue was in excess of $41,000,000.

The defendants contend, and properly so, that Laclede Gas

Company was engaged in interstate commerce and that

its labor activitiesgare subject to the Labor Management

Relations Act, 1947. Amalgamated Association vy. Wis-

consin Board: 340 U.S. 8838, 391, 71S. Ct. 359, 95 L. Bd.

B64; State ex rel. State Board of Mediation v. Piqg, 362

Mo. 798, 244 S. W. 2d 7A, 80S).

The defendants’ first attack upon the constitutionadity

of the King-Thompson Aet, Ch. 295 R.S. Mo, 1949, is that

it contravenes Art. J, Seetion Sand Art. VI ef the Consti-

tution of the United States in that it confliets with the

National Labor Relations Act ef 1925, as amended by the

Labor Managemeut Relations Act of 1947. The national

labor relations laws, were enacted pursuant to Section 8,

Clause 3 of Art. 1 Which empowers Congress to regulate

commerce among the several states. Art. VI, Clause 2,

declares the Constitution and the laws of the United States

made pursuant thereto to be the supreme Law of: the

Land. a

~The constitutionality of the King-Thompson Act wes

under attack on thé same ground in the case of State ex

rel. State Board of Mediation v. Pigg, 362 Mo. 798, 244

_S. W. 2d 75. In the Pigg case, this court held the Act

Was severable, particularly those sections directly affect.

ing the State Board of : Mediation, its#legal existence,

powers and duties. 244 S. W. 2d-79(7).. The first eight

sections of the King-Thompson Act, Sees. 295.010-295.0s0,

R. S. Mo. 1949, declaring state policy, defining terms.

creating the Board and defining its duties, powers ani

‘mediation services, were held not to be in conflict with

the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, particular!

‘in view of Secs. 202(c) and! 203(b), 29.7. S.C. AL Sees.

172(¢c) and 178(b), which contemplate the existence of

State Boards and cooperation ‘with them. 244 S.°W. 24d

80 (8, 9). Sections of the King-Thompson Act providing

for public hearing panels, being Sees. 295.120-295.170,

were held in the Pigg case’ not to require compulsory

arbitration and not to be in conflict with the Labor Manag-

ment Relations Act since both the federal and state acts

‘rely upon the force of public opitiion to induce the parties’

to arrive at a voluntary agreement.’’ 244 8S. W. 2d 82(10).

To the extent that those sections are a necessary predicate

for the additional sections not reached for decision in the

Pigg case, but with which we are now concerned, wi

reafirm our previous holding that those sections are

not unconstitutional as being in conflict with the federal

Act. r .

The facts relied upon to rebut the presumption et

constitutionality of the Act must specifically appear im

ihe record. Pacific States Box & Basket Co, v. White

296 U. S. 176, 185, 56S. Ct. 159, 80 L. Ed. 138, 101 A. 1. RB.

oh State ex rel. Kenosha Auto Transport Corporation

. Flanigdn, 349 Mo. 54, 159 S. W. 2d 598, 599 (2. 3).

Judicial review will not be accorded constitutional ques

tions which are not directly and necessarily involved in

the particular legal situation presented on appeal. Ju

gel v. City "f Glendale. Mo., 161 8. W. 2d 408, 409'2

\ ; 29

Kanses City, Mo. v. Walliams, 205 F.2d 47, 51(3), certiorari

denied 346 U.S. S26, 74S. Ct. 45. 98 1. Ed. 351.'

The essential facts in this case are that the governor,

after investigation, proclaimed that the public interest,

health and welfare were jeopardized as a result of the

interruption of gas service caused by a strike of Laclede

employees; executive orders were issued, the property of |

the utility was seized: and, when the employees failed

to return to wor k, the state sought and obtained an injune-

tion. “The parts of the Act directly involved are Section

295.180, relating to the power of seizure, ~— subpata-

graphs (1) and (6) of Seefion 295.200 R. S. Mo. making

unlawful a/strike or concerted. refusal to work after

seizure and giving the state courts power to enforee the

provisions of the Aet by injunetion or other means. Under

established principles, we will restrict: our consideration

to those sections directly involved.

The dominant purpese of the King-Thompson Act is

the protection of the welfare and, health of the people

when threatened by the interruption of services of utili-

ties operating under governmental franchise ‘or permit or

under governmental ownership and control. It is an

exercise of the police powers of the state? Its provisions

| a The wisdom of our not passing on- such questions until they

are squarely before us is well stated in West v. Spencer, 238 Mo. 65

HS. W. 386. 58802). as follows: ‘*This rule has a tendency to

exclude obiter; it points the distinetion between a legal treatise on a

general head of the Jaw aud a judicial opinion on a concrete case,

and it saves trouble to’ those judges who come after us and are

called to decide the question as vital and turning in some appeal.”

2 Section 205.010, declaring the state policy is as follows: ‘It

is hereba declared to be the policy of the state that heat. light,

power, sanitation, transportation, communication, and water are

life essentials of the people; that the possibility of labor strife in

Utilities operating under governmental franchise or permit or under

governmental ownership ‘and control is'a threat to the welfare and

health of the people: that utilities so operating are clothed with

public interest, and the state’s regulation of the labor relations

‘affecting such public utilities is necessary in the public interest

L. 1947 V. Tp. 358, §1).”’

a s

being re anedial should be lithe rally construed. State or rs!

30 ce

é s

-are directed against both the utility and its employees for

the purpose of protecting the patrons and the public

generally. While it makes mediation services and publi

heating panels available, it does not force these service

upon the parties, This is consistent with the policy of

the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947. The Act ders

not purport to be a complete set of labor relation laws.

Section 295.180 authorizes the governor to take pos.

session of the utility property for the use and operation

by the state of Missouri only when the parties do the iaber

dispute ‘engage in any strike, work stoppage or Jockou

which, in the opinion of the gavernor, will result in faslun

to continue the operition of the public utility, and threat

ens the public interest, health and welfare."

The State of Missouri has regulated the relations b#@

tween public utilities and their patrons as far back as

1913 when the Publie Service € omission: Was establis hel.

See Laws of Missouri 1913, p. 602, how Ch. 886, R. S. Mo.

1949. The Public Servier Commission Law diselaims any

intent to interfere with interstate commerce, oxcept it

so far as the same may be permitted under the provisions

of the Constitution of the United States and: the aets of

congress."" Laws of Missouri 1913, p. 651, See, 138; See.

386.080 R. S. Mo. 1949, ‘

The right of a State to regulate and control public utilt

ties operating within its borders is inherent and is refer.

able to the police powers. Statutes with respect therets

re peer ee

ce i Tite. : Public Service Commission of Missoun, +

+ Mo. 93, 34.8 JW. 2d 87, 4202) 5 citlantic Coast — he.

v. North Coroliny Corp. Comm., 206 U.S. 1, 27S. €t. :

OS), OL LL. Ed. 983: Lonisrile ete. h. Cory, hati ssee RO

Courm.. 19 F. G79: 3. J: S. 1006, Publie Utilities £11:

$5 Am. Jur. 577, Public Utilities and Service £10. Seetion

386,610 of our statutes provides that the Publie Servier |

a |

Commission Law '**shall be liberally construed with a view

to the public avelfare, efficient facilities and substantial

justice between patrons and public utilities.” ( Emphasis

supplied.)

Chapter 286 of the statutes deals generally with the pub-

lie services Commission, its powers and duties and procedure

before it, Chapter 893 deals specifically with gas, electric,

waiter and heating corporations. See. 393.180) provides

that every such utility, including a gas company, is re-

qmred by law to furnish and provide ‘*such service in-

strumentalities and facilities as shall be safe and adequate

and inallrvespeets just and reasonable.’’ Laws of Missouri

1913, p. G2,

It is quite clear that the ‘tpatrons’’ of Laclede Gas

Company were not furnished with *tsafe and adequate”

service after’ the strike began. The strike had been in

progress for five days before the governor exercised his

cnergeney powers and it was four days later before the

state filed suit. The evidence demonstrates. conclusively

that the public health, safety and interest was jeopardized

and that the governor had reasonable cause to take action.

The evidence showed that Laclede had approximately

364,000 customers, ineluding domestic, industrial and com-

moreil users, It was the only utility distributing gas in

the area, Residential customers used gas for cooking,

water heating, refrigeration and space heating. Practically

all of the hospitals in the St. Louis area used gas for

sterilization, hot water heating, cooking and space heating.

Doctors and dentists in the area were also furnished with

gas for their office purposes. Large honsing projects were

also among the company’s customers,

During the first ten days of the strike, Laclede received

in excess of 13,000 service calls concerned principally with

complaints that the gas service had failed or that leaks

existed jr the streets, Records of typical cases involving

\ of

rs |

x 32

danger ‘to health and safety were put in evidence by the

state. T lie normal number of complaints concerning fail-

W gas service for such a period was about 100. There

Was testNnony that ‘practically all the areas in our county

“osystem"

ure

had been demied gas service due apparently to

the closing of shut-off valves: by unauthorized persons.

Areas within the city of St. Louis were without gas labgels

due to water being injectéd into the gas mains. Shut-off

valves were locked in boxes which could be opened only hv

‘a special type of key. Certain employees had these keys

prior to the strike: and there was no way of telling if all

of then: had been turned in. Some members of fire des

partments throughout the city and county also’ dad keys

‘to. these boxes, Instances were discovered by the police

where water was injected into the gas mains. In one cas:

the hose from a water faucet was still connected and water

was running into the gas pipe when the potice arrived.

Water in the gas system may shut off a customer's: gas

‘temporarily in travelling through*the pipes to a low point

in the system; and, after it has passed, the gas may come

back on and eseape through an open outlet, thereby creat:

ing a dangerous situation. Restoring gas service. in any

section requires’ the help of a great number of people. If

the vi: alve were merely turned on again, gas ringht escape

throneh an open outlet and create an explosive or otherwise

dangerous situation, Tt is necessary to shut off the was at

every meter, turn the gas'back into the system, then turn |

on the maar each customer and light the pilots. During |

the strike the company did not have sufficient employees to

restore service onee it had been turned off.

Fhere were also. reports of gas escaping into the sewer,

svstems and eausing vas fires which had to be extingnished.

At one station, wires carrying electric current used. for

power were disconnected by the unserewing and removing

of three bolts. In trving to discover the trouble; the man .

in charge of the plant came in contact with the wires and

was severely burned. HH the eleetric coruection hades not

been restored in time, the seal of the gas tank would have

veo broken and the gas in the hoider would have escaped.

There was also evidence ®t tampering with I a telemetric

controls, which are instruments designed to keep the gas

pressure at the proper amount ti various sections of the

distribution system. This created a danger in that gas lines

might be ruptured ‘by excessive pressure and. flames on

burning appliances might be dangerously increased, Ar-

rangements were made with city and county police to pro-

tect the places where these telemetric controls were located,

Init the police could not furnish twenty-four-hour protec-

tion.” The company ‘also received numerous reports of

eseaping gas. Since natural gas has practically no odor, it

Was the practice of Laclede and other companies to add an

odorant for safety purposes so that leaks could be detected

more readily, This odorant, a liquid, was normally avail-

able to some of the employees. During the strike a bottle

of this odorant was thrown through a window of the Forest

Park office of the company, and other quantities of it were

‘deposited at various places in the service area to give the

impression that there were leaks where none existed.

When the strike began, the tinions advertised in the news-

papers that they were setting up crews to take care of

emergency work and listed telephone numbers for the pub-

lie to call, The defendants’ evidence was that these erews

responded to approximately 150 calls.

While the evidence is not sufficient to.show that the de-

fendants were responsible for these acts of sabotage which

helped bring on the emergency, it was sufficient to prove

that there Was a serious and alarming interruption” of

utility service and the public interest, health and safety

were jeopardized. This was the setting in which the gov-

ernor.issued his proclamation and executive orders.

. 34

Danie] C. Rogers, Chairman of the State Board of Medi-

ation, told the union representatives that by their: strike

they had caused the service of a) publie utility to be dis.

continued and advised them that under the Public Service

Commission Law, he felt that ‘*they, as well as the com

pany, were obliged to render continuous and safe service to

the-public.’* However, the employees did not resume their

duties until the trial court renderd its judgment and de-

cree.

** Employees of a public service corporation assume upon

entering the service an implied obligation to perform thei:

duties in such a manuer as will enable the corporation to

discharge its obligations te the publie* 35 Am. Jur. 514.

Master and Servant, See. 82.) See also Wilson v. New, 243

(’. B. 332, 353.

A gitility in its relation to the state and the people ir

‘serves cannot be considered wholly separate and apart

from its employees for without them the utility cannot

function and render safe and adequate service.’ The Pub-

lic Service Commission law recognizes this and imposes

penalties on employees: as weil as on utilities for their:

wrongful acts. |

Seetion 386.570 imposes a penalty upon aiiy corporation.

persou or publie utility which vielates or fails to comply

With any provision of the constitution or any law of the

state or any order of the commission. In like manner.

£ 386.580 makes it a misdemeanor for every officer Zagent

oremployvee of a publie utility who violates er fails to com-

ply with any provision of the constitution or of the laws

3. “Section 10. Art. VIL of the Labor Agreement of Local =

dealing with work under adverse: Weather wconditions, provides, *

inter alia, p. 43: “During inclement weather Leak Trucks shall do

work of emergency nature only. (Emergency work ineludes turn

ing on of service and answering of all leaks reported by the pul

lic.)** This contract. put in evidence by the defendants, expire!

- June 30, 1956, but the portion quoted indicates a’ recognition ot

public obligation by the employees as well as by the utility.

eo t—t—‘=OS

of this state'or any order of the commission.t This also

has been the law of Missouri since 1913, présumably a

valid enactment under the police powets of the state.

A local public utility eccupies a favored position in that

itis free from competition and has other privileges such as

the right of eminent-domain, These advantages inure to

the benefit of the utility employees in the form of greater

continuity und seeurity of jobs and compensation. The

demand for utility services is constant. Compensation of

employees is an operating cost of the utility and the rate

must he sufficient for-the paythent of such expenses. 75

CJS. 1040, Public Utilities, § 25, Note 15. The employees’

duties are owed to the publie thouzh rendered through

the Qtility. ~ Se jong as the status of employee continues,

the duty remains. Regulation by the state is necessary

because wility service is not an individual, but a commu-

nity problem. The state's representation of the publie

would be deticient if it did not have seme right to control

the conduct of emplovees throngh which the utility. oper-

ploy 3 '

ates, «

A strike or loé¢keut whieh jeopardizes thee public health,

safety or interest is not a protected activity under the’

Labor Management Relations Act, 1947. See. 1(b) of the

Net, 20: UL S.C. See. 141(b) provides: ‘Industrial strite

Which interferes with the normal flow of commerce anc

$0 386.580. Employee of public utility guilty of misdemeanor,

When.— Every officer. agent or employee of any corporation or

public utility, who violates or fails to comply with, or who pro-

cures, aids or abets any Violation by any corporation, person or

public utility of any provisiog of the constitution of this state or

uf this or any other law. orewho fails to obey, observe or comply

With any order, deci ‘ision, decree, rule, direction, demand or require-

ment, or any part or provision thereof, of the commission, or who

procures, aids or abets any corporation, person or public utility in

their or its failure to obey, observe and comply with any such

order, decision, decree, rule, direction, demand or requirement. or

auy part or provision thereof, * * * is. guilty of a niisdemeanor

os °° Laws of Missouri 1913, p. 649.

with the full production of articles and commodities for

commerce can be avoided or substantially minimized if

employers, employees, and labor organizations cach recog.

nize under law one another's legitimate rights in their

relations with each other, and abore all recognize under

law that neither party has any right in tts relations with

any Other to engage im acts or practices which jeopardix |

the public health, safety or interest.”” 61 Stat. 186. (Ttalies

added.) This congressional declaration clearly indicates

a purpose to subordinate such ‘taets and practices’ to ti:

public health, safety and interest. By use of the term

‘Sunder law*’ state Jaws must have been intended as well

as federal laws because historically and traditionally the

state governments have been vested with the protection ot

the public health, safety and interest under their general

police powers. ji

Consistent with the subordination of labor relation acts

and practices which jeopardize the public interest is the

1947 amendment which makes it clear that Congress did

not intend ‘to remove any existing ‘limitations or qualifi-

cations’? on the right to strike. See. 13 as amended; 29

U.S. C. See. 168. The United States Supreme Court has

recognized that violations of local laws enacted for the

preservation of property rights and personal safety are

®’. The National Labor Relations Beard in Marshall Car, Whe’

and Foundry Co:, 107 N. LG. R. B. 314, 315. recognized that there are

employments in which the right to strike is subordinated hy tl:

nature of the employee's duties. stating: ‘In cases involving

supervisory and plant-protection employees, the Board has reees:

nized the validity of the general principle that the right ef certain

classes of employees to engage in concerted activity is limited bs

the duty to take reasonable precautions to protect the employers

physical plant from such imminent damage as forseeably woul’

result from their sudden cessation of work, We are of the opinion

that this duty extends as well to ordinary rank-and-file employees

whose work tasks are such as to involve responsibility for the prop-

erty which might be damaged. Employees who strike in breach o!

such obligation engage in unprotected activity ‘for which they may

be discharged or subjected to other forms of discipline affecting

_ their employment conditions.’

without fhe protection of the federal Act. National Labor

Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp,, 306 U.S.

240, 598. Ct: 490, 83-1. Kd. 627, a *sit-down’’ strike ;

International Union v. Wisconsin Board, 336 U.S. 240,

gs265, 69S. Ct. 516, 938 1. Kd. 601, intermittent work —

ftoppawes : AUen-Bradl y Local v. Wisconstn Board, 315

S740, 748-749, 62 S. Ct. 820, 86 1 Ed. 1154 and United

dufomobile Workers v. Wisconsin foard, 351 U.S. 266,

ITZI75, TOS. Ct. TO4, 100 L. Kd. 1162, mass picketing and

violence agaiust persons and property, This is. consistent

With Congressional intent as expressed in other Acts where

the evereise of the police power by the local government

is particularly suitable. For instance, the Natural Gas

Act, 52 Stat. S21, expressly provides that it shall not apply

local distribution of natural gas or to the facilities used

for such distribution.’ 15 °U. S.C. See. 717(b). This

Aet was passed Jime 21, 1958, three years after the orig-

‘nal National Labor Relations Act, Congress would hardly |

expect the state to regulate and control the Joeal distribn-

tion of natural gas and the facilities therefor without the

vovernmental powers necessary to make it» Jaws and

_ orders with respeet the oto effective. |

There are also federal laws which have the effect of

limiting and qualifying the right to strike. In Southern

8.8. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 316 "Si,

62S. Ct. 886, 86-1. Ed, 1246, seamen of a ship whose home

port was Philadelphia struck and refused to obey orders

while in port at Houston. The discharge ¢f the seamen

was held'to be justified because the strike was in violation

of the federal mutiny laws. The national emergency pro-

visions of the labor relations Act, 29 FF. S. C.. Sec. 176-180,

have limited and qualified the right to strike and there is-no

question but that Congress could make unlawful and pro-

‘hibit entirely strikes that jeopardize the national health,

safety and interest. Youngstown. Sheet, & Tube Co. v.

Sawyer, 3438 U.S. 579, 588. \ aes,

An absence of violence traceable to the defendants does

not render this a **peaceful strike, In Senn ve Tile Layers

‘Union, 801 US. 468, 479, 57S. Ct. S57, 81 LL. Bde 1220, th

court stated: . **The statute provides that the picketing

must be peaceful; and that term: as used implies net gui

absence of. violence but absence of any unlawtul get. |

precludes the intimidation of customers. Tt prechides a

form of physical obstruction or interference with the plai

HiY’s business.’ A’ strike such as this operates: ehiet

against the public. The utility loses no business beeans

there is nowhere for the patrons to turn for service. Th

inevitable result of such a strike is to coerce and intimidat

the customers contrary to laws made for their protection.

Both the utility and-its employees failed in their duty te

furnish the — With a continuous, safe and adednat

supply of gas. This is in violation of the laws of Missour:

and the orders of the Publie Service Commission implicit

in the approval of the corporate charter and the grant o

the utility's franchise and permit. Such violation i- mad:

a misdemeanor by our statutes. Sees. 386.570 and 386480

Further, our conspiracy statute, See 556.120, provides: oT

two or more persons shall agree, conspire, combine or cor

federate: First, to commit any offense; * * * or, sixth, to

commit any act injurious to the public health or public

morals, © * * shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.”

The failure of the parties to agree upon a contract and th

resultant strike does not exeuse the violations. Sueh si

strike if long continued would likely result in proceedings

to suspend or revoke the utility’s franchise or permit for

violation of obligations provided by law.

The appellants contend this ease is ruled by Aimealaaimnate/

Association v. Wisconsin Board ,:348 U.S. 383, but we de

not think so. The statutes involved in the two eases ar

substantially different.” One of the main differenees is that

the Wisconsin Act proviérd for compulsory arbitration

ome

i, CR De

while the King-Thompson Act does not. The utility em

ployees are not required to accept mediation services or

sthe findings of the hearing panel under the Missouri Act.

Voluntary agree anents through collective bargaining are

not abolished. The only limitation upon an employees’

strike or a company’s lockout is if the public interest is

endangered. The Wisconsin Act provided for a ban on

strikes and compulsory arbitration When at impasse wats

reached in negotiations, “The Missouri Act, on the other

and. does not render a strike unlawful until the governo

has determined that the publie health, safety and imterest

is threatened and lias ade the property ‘for the use and

operation by the state of Missouri ja the public interest.”

Section 285.180. The King-‘Thompson Act ts strictly emer

venev legislation and is net a comprehensive code for the.

settlement of labor disputes in utilities asx the Wisconsin

Act appeitred to he. Emergeney legislation is justified

under the police powers, 16©. 5.8. We2- O73, Comtitutional

Law ¢ 198. The purpose of se izure is the: preservation of

community life as encouraged and satel by the state.

The purpose of the Act is to protect its citizens against

disaster. As previously indicated, we deem the strike

the eire umstances it this case to be unlawful and, therefore,

hota peaceful strike as the term is used in Amalgamated

Association ve Wisconsin Board,

The King Thompson Act operates in the field et police”

powers and deals specifically with the relation between a

utility including its employees, on the one hand, and the

patrons’ and citizens of the community, on the other.

The Taft-Hartley Aet deals with interstate commerce and

more particularly with the relations between employers

. and their employees. The dominant purposes of the two

Acts are different: if there is any overlapping, if is inel-

dental and not substantial. Only undne and discriminatory

burdens on interstate commerce are forbidden. Breard vy.

Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 71'S. Ct. 920, 95 L. Ed. 1233,

35 A. L. R. 2d 335, uiwaeiee denied 342 U.S. 843, 72 S.Ct.

21, 96 L. Ed. 637.

The exercise of the state police power is superseded only

where repugnance or conflict with a federal act is so direct

and positive that the two acts cannot be regoneiled. United

Workers v. Laburnum Coustruction Co., 347 U.S. 656, 74

S. (t. 8383, 98 L. Edo 1025: Breard vy. Alerandria, Supra

As stated by Mr. Chief Justice Hnehes in Kelly ve Washing

ton, 302 UL S21, 10, SRS. Ct S87: The principle is thor.

oughly established that the exercise hy the state of its

police power, which would be valid if not superseded by

federal action, is superseded only where the repugnance or

conflict is so ‘direct and positive’ that the two acts cannot

‘he reconciled or consistently stand together.

A growing number of decisions of the United State-

Supreme Court. indieates a considerable area where state

activity and regulation is permitted, Among the more -re

cent-eases are: (oA. Wow. Russell 356 US. STS SS.

Ct. 9382, 2. L. Bd. 2d 1080, and Machinists Ass'n v. Gonzales,

396 UT.) S. ay 78S. Ct. 923, 2°. Bd. 2d 1018. Russell

recovered damages for loss of earnings and malicious inter:

ference with his employment. suffered when pickets pre-

vented his entering his place of work. Gonzales, wrongfully

expelled from his union, obtained a deeree of restoration

to membership and a money judgment. In each case a

state eourt judgment was affirmed although the matters

appeared to be partially within the jurisdiction of the

National Labor Relations Board.® Police powers of the

6. See also: Aen Bradley Local vo Wisconsin Board, 315

U. S. 740, TAS-TO1: Algona Plinecood (‘o. ¥, Wisconsin Roard, RF

VS. 301: International Union vo Wisconsin Boar’, 336 US) 245:

Garner Vv. Teamsters Unien, AB US. ASS, dss. United Canstin

tion Workers ¥. Lahurnian Constiuetian Co. 347 US. 656. Adams

pairy v Burke. Mo., 293 8. W. 2d 281, cert. den. 352 1S. 969;

United Auta Workers vo Wisconsin Board & Wohler Co... 351 US

266, 274; Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richmond (sie) Bros..

348 U.S. 511: Giboney vo Empiré Storage _ Tee Company, 357

Mo. 671, 210 S. W. 2d 55, affirmed 336. U. 490.

state and their exercise as opposed to federal laws were

involved in Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin moare, 315

U.S. 740, 749, wherein the Court stated that it wpuld ‘not

lightly infer that Congress by the mere passage ‘ot a fed-

eral Act has impaired the traditional sovereignty of the

several states’? in regard to ‘'such traditionally local mat-

ters as public safety and order and the use of streets and

highways. The King-Thompson Act is predoniinately

(sic) an extension of the regulation and control of publie

utilities in the publie interest and as such is the exercise of

“historical powers’’ of the state. So construed Sections

295,180 ard 295.200(1) present no direct and irreconcilable

contliet with the federal Act even without the aid of the

subordination provisions of 20 U.S.C. See. 141.0 The See-

tions are therefore not unconstitutional,

Section 295. 200(6) authorizes the courts in renee ‘to

enforce by injunction or other leg ral or equitable remedies

“any provision of this chapter or any’ rule or regulation

prescribed by, the governor hereunder."* The state has

always been deemed to have the power to compel a public

utility company to furnish service to the inhabitants of the

territory it has-undertaken to serve. State er rel. Ozark

Power & Water Co. v. Public Service Commission of

Missouri. 287 Mo. 522, 229 S. W. 782, 785(2); New York &

Queens Gas Co. v. McCall, 245 U. s, ry 38S. ('t. 122, 62 L.

Ed. 337; 73.C. J. S. 1002, Publie Utilities § Sa.

43 Am. Jur. 595, Public Utilities and Service, § 33 states:

‘A comnion tse of the remedy of injunction against public

utilities is to.compel them to perform their obligations to

the public, as, for example, the obligation to furnish service

or supply a commodity. > Among the cases eited in sup-

port of this statement is North Carolina Public Service Co.

v. Southern Power Co., C. C: A. 4, 282 F. 837, 33 A. L. R.

626, writ of certiorari dismissed 263 U.S. 508, 44S. Ct. 164,

68 L. Ed. 413. See also 15 A. L. R. 2d 257-264.

Our general statute, Section 386.360, expressly providing

for such relief in the public interest states that: ‘* When-

ever the commission shall be of the opinion that a * * * gas

corporation, * * * is failing’ or omitting or about to fail or,

omit ‘to do anything required of it by law or by order or |

decisions of the commission, or is doing anything or about

to do anything or permitting anything or about to permit

anything to be done, contrary to or in violation. of Jaw or

of any order or decision of the commission, it shall direet

the general counsel to the commission to commence an

action * * * for the purpose of having such violations or

threatened violations stopped and lesttiicani either by

mandamus or injunctions.”’ }

Section 295.210 is a savings clause similar to that con-

tained in the Labor Management Relations Act, 29.U. S. (

Section 143. It provides: .**No employee shall be required

to render labor or service without his consent; nor shall,

anything in this chapter be construed to make the quitting

of his labor.or services by an individual employee an illegal

act; nor shalt any court issue any process to compel, the

performance by an individual.employee of such labor or

service without his consent.’’ It- follows that § 295.200(6)

is not in conflict with the federal Act and is, therefore, not

unconstitutional.

The sections which we have considered are severable

from and may stand independently of the remainder of the

Act. Although the defendants argue strenuously to. the

‘contrary, no case is made in this reeord for determina-

tion of the constitutionality of § 295.090, pertaining to a

written labor agreement of a minimum duration and.

§ 295.200, subparagraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5, relating to mone-

tary penalties and loss -of seniority. We, therefore, re-

frain from expressing any opinion with reference thereto.

Wilson v. New, 248 U.S. 332, 354; Lolorde v. Lacy, 337

Mo. 1097, 88S. W. 2d 353, 360(19); Beets v. Tyler, 365

‘ f

Mo. 895; 290 S. W. 2d 76, 82.16); Logsdon v. Duncan, Mo.,

593 S. W. 2d 944, 946(1): State ex rel. State Board of

Mediation v. Pigg, supra,

. The appellants next, charge that the King-Thompson

Act is in violation of Art. 1, § 29, of the Constitution of

Missouri, because the right to bargain collectively includes

the right to strike. Section 29 provides: ‘* That employees

shall have the. right to “organize and to bargain collee-

tively through representatives of their own choosing.”*

This is to the same effect as § 7 of. the amended National

Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. @. § 157, vet limitations

on the right to strike are recognized: under. the federal .

law.. The King-Thompsen Act does not abolish’ the right

of utility employees to strike, but only subordinates the

right to the publie interest. This. is an exercise of the

police power of the State which ¢ 29 does not impair. See

City of Springfield v. Clouse, 856 Mo. 1239, 206 8S, W.-

2d 539, 542, 544, and Glidewelly. Hughey, Mo., 3148S. W. 2d

749. We find no valid distinction which would prefer —

this over other constitutional guarantees of personal lib-

erties which have been held to be subordinate to the potice

powers, Breard v. Alerandria, 341 U.S. 622, 642; Prince

v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-167.

Next appellants contend that’ See. 295.180, providing

for seizure, is an unlawful delegation of legislative powers

violative of Art. IT, See. 1, of the Constitution of Mis-

souri, 1945, in that it does. not provide sufficient standards

and guides for ‘‘earrying out the seizure provisions of

the Act.’" The alleged deficiencies of the Act in this

regard are not pointed out more specifically. Sec. 295.180

sets out in considerable detail the circumstances under

which the governor may take possession of utility prop-

erty. See. 295.200(1) makes a strike or conecrted refusal

to work thereafter unlawful and See. 295.200(6) vests

_the courts with jurisdiction to enforce the Act or any of

the governor's rules or regulations. We do not think th

Act ‘‘fails to preseribe with reasonable clarity the limit

of the power delegated,’* 42. Am. Jur. 341, Publie Adini::-

istrative Law, See. 44, or that it fails to state the purpose

“‘with sufficient exactness to enable those affected. to

understand. these limits."") U.S. v. Rock Royal Co-op, li.

307 U. S. 533. When the legislature has described the

purpose or rule, matters of detail in administering the

act may be left to ‘the executive even though the exe rise

of diseretion is involved. Spiteaufsky v, Hatten, 353 Mo.

94, 182 S. W. 2d ty 109(60); State ex rel. Crain vy. Moore,

339 Mo. 492, 99'S. W. 2d 17, 21(6). It is not necessary

that statutes seounillie a rule of action where they deal

with situations which require the vesting of discretion

in a public officer such as where the diseretion relates to

a police regulation and is necessary to protect the public

-health, safety. and welfare. Ex parte Willianes, 345 Mo. *)

1121, 139 S. W. 2d. 485, 490(10); Halbfell. v. City of St

Louis, 357 Mo, 986, 211 S. W. 2-911, 915(3). See also 1b

C. J. S. 575, Constitutional Law, See. 138 and 42 Am. Jur

337, Public Administrative Law, See. 43. The axsignmet

is denied. :

Next the appellants attack See. 295.200(1) on the

ground that it violates Sees.'2, 8, 9 and 10 of the Const:

tution of Missouri, and the First, Thirteenth and Four

teenth Amendments: of the Constitution of the United

States. See. 295.200(1) provides: “It shall be unlawf:

for any person, employee, or representative as detined

in this chapter to call, incite, support or participate i }

any strike or concerted refusal to work for any ntility °

for the state after any plant, equipment or facility has

been taken over by the state under this chapter, as means

of enforeing any demands against the utility or against th

state.’’ oe

First the appellants claim that the statute is so vague ane

im AE ELLOS ETE

indefinite that it violates rights of free speech, peaceable

assembly, due process and other constitutional guarantees.

They say the statutory language is sdsceptible of differ

ent meanings and cite cases: involving’ criminal statutes,

which generally hold that due process requires the eyime

and elements to be so clearly expressed that an or-

dinary person may know the lawful course. This. is

nota criminal statute, but in any event, we do not think

the statute is fatally vague or indefinite. As stated

in United States v. Petrillo, 382 U@S. 1, 8, 67 S. Ct. 1538,

ML. Kd. 1877, the constitution does not require impos-

sible standards and:) ‘*The language here challenged

conveys sufficiently definite warning, as to the proseribed

conduct when measured by common -understanding and

practices. The Constitution requires no more."*

Further the defendants contend that See. 295.200(1)

an “outright denial of the right of free speech’* guar-

anteed ni the First and Fourteenth Amendments tothe.

United States Constitution and See. 8, Art. 1 ofthe Mis-

sourl Constitution and that the statute denies their rights

to peaceably assemble for their common good, pursuant

to See. 9 Art. [of the Constitution of Missouri. In sup-

port of these’contentions, the defendants cite Thornhill v.

Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, holding invalid: a inane

ding picketing; Thomas v. Collins, 323° U.S. 516, involv-

ing a state statute requiring labor organizers to yegister

before soliciting union memberships; Marr d Haas. Jeans

Clothing Co. y. Watson, 168 Mo. 133, 67 S. W. 391, seek-

ing 16 enjoin distribution of a circular regarding the

plaintiff's labor practices; and Ear parte Munn, 357 Mo.

296, 207 S. W. 2d 468, holding invalid the Madison Act,

a state statute.

The cases cited by the. defendants ‘recognize that these.

constitutionally guaranteed rights are subject to regula-

tion in the publie interest. The cireumstances under which

— «46

2 % ? $e

this may be done and to what extent’ is wellsstated in an

opimion by the late Chief Justice Vanderbilt: of the Su.

preme-4‘ourt of New Jersey in a case involving an attack

upon a similar New Jersey statute, Stute vo Traffic Tele-

prone Workers Federation, 2 XN. J. 335, 66 A. 2d 616,

622, as, follows: Ht must he recognized that: the statutes

in question inevitably impinge upon the unfettered sexer

cise of some.of: the constitutional guarantees asserted by

the defendant union, Iut only out of deference, however,

to the paramount significance of other publie rights. That,

as we have’ shown, is: not an uncommon occurrence in

‘the field of constitutional law. ~The immediate question

is whether or not such restrictions on the absolute ap-

plication of any constitutional guarantees come within

the area delimited in the decisions of the Supreme Court

of the United) States as the ultimate arbiter of the mean:

ing of the Federal Constitution as justifying such re-

strictions. The ‘tests that. the United States Supreme

Court has laid down in this field, and particularly, where

freedom of speech, ficedom of the’ press, and freedom of

assembly are involved, are that: such restraints are justi

fiable only ‘to prevent grave and immediate danger to -

interests which the state may lawfully protect* and any

_ such restraints must be reasonable.’’

‘Defendants make no showing that the statute interferes

with their right of assemblage ‘or freedom of speech as

such. Nor does it ‘prohibit ¢ picketing except as it may

he an adjunct of the strike or concerted refusal to. work.

Moreover, picketing is not an unqualified right, but is

also subject to the police power. See Giboney vo Ea pire-

Storaqe and ee Co, 3386 U.S. 490, 503- 504, 69 Ss €h

684, 93 TL. Ke SH Building Service Emploijées Unio

Gaaszam, 3389 Pages S. 5932, 586: and Jutervational Brother-

hood of ‘Teamsters ve Hanke, 339 U.S. 470, 474. Team

sters Union v. Vogt, Inc., 354 U. S. 284, diseusses the

ae 47

more recent cases ineluding Thornhill-and concludes, 304

U.S. 293: «This series of cases, then, established a

broad field) in. which acState, in enforcing some public

policy, Whether of its criminal or its civil law, and whether |

announced by its legislature or its courts, could consti-

tutionally enjoin peacéful picketing almed at preventing |

effectnation of that polieyv."" This statute is part of emer:

ceney legislation dealing with clear and present threats to

the publie health and welfare. It is a reasonable reg

ulation and not Unconstitutional ow the grounds stated.

"The defendants further say that ¥ 295,200(1) denies °

utility employees and their representatives equal rights

—and opportunities under Jaw, Art, 1, § 2 of the Missouri’

(onstitution,. and equal protection of the laws under the

Fourteenth Amendment. It is within the legislative au-

thority to classify and deal with businesses affected with

the public interest. Mann v. Tlinois, 94 0. S.113. The

classifiention of utility employees and union representa:

tives cannot be said to be lacking any adequate or rea-

sonable basis... Whitney ve California, 274 UL S. 357, 370;

Wilson ve Newt 243 U.S. 382, 349. Tt is unnecessary for

the state legislature to cover the whole field of possible

abuses. Hughes ve Super. Court of California, 339 US.

460, 468, . ;

Finally, the defendants say that ¢295.200(1) imposes

a form of compulsory serviee or involuntary servitude.

in violation of Amendment Thirteen of the Constitution of

the United States. Section 295.210 is a saving provision

similar to the one in-the Labor-Management Relations

Act, 1947929 UL S.C. AL $148. 7It provides in substances

that no employee shall be required to render labor or

service without his consent and that the Act. shall not

he construed so as to make. the quitting of his job by an

individual eiployee an illegal act. The defendants’ in-

terpretation of the §295.200(1) is strained and unwar

: 7

ranted. It loses sight of the fact that the seetion under

attack is directed against a strike or concerted) refs!

to work ‘and has nothing to do with one or more quitting

work of their own volition. The section does not have tly

purpose or effect of imposing involuntary servitude in vie

lation of the Thirteenth Amendment. 9 Auto Worker.

Wisconsin Board, 886 U.S. 245, 251.

in its amended judzment a al decree entered August 17,

1996, the trial court found and declared that ** Chaps

295, ROS. Moe.. 1949. and all portions thereof are vali

enforceable, constitutional, and not in violation or derovs

tion of the Constitution of the United States or of ths

Constitution of the State of Missouri.’’ We have dinyte:

our inquiry and determination to ¢§ 205.010.295.080, 205,

120-295.170, 295.180, 295.20001) and 295.200(6). With

spect to these seetions, we have considered and denice

all of defendants’ claims of unconstitutionality.

As so limited and modified the judgement is affirmeri

(rem F. Srorek Man,

Judar.

APPENDIX E.

Soe

THE. KING-THOMPSON ACT, ROS. MO. 1949,

CHAPTER 295.

205,010. Labor relations affecting public utilities-

state policy. Wt is hereby declared to be the policy of |

theatate that heat, light, power, sanitat on, transportation,

communication, and water are life essentials of the peo-

ple: that the possibility of labor strife in utilities operat-

- ing under governmental franchise or perinit or under gov

erumental ownership and contro is a threat to the wel-

fare and health of the people: that utilities so operating

are clothed with pablie interest, and the state’s regula

tion of the labor relations-affeeting such public utilities ix

necessary in-the publie interest,

205020, Definitions. 1. The term **publie utility’

shall include any person engaged in the business of pro-

ducing, distributing, selling or otherwise furnishing elee-

tric light or power, heat, gas, steam, water, sewer service,

transportation excepting railroads, communication, er any

one or more of them to the people of Missourt —

2. The term ‘tperson’* means any individual, firm, co-

partnership, corporation, muulcipal corporation, company,

dssociation, or joint-stock association; and includes any

trustee, receiver, assignee, or personal representative

thereof,

9. The term ‘trepresentative’’ means any person or

persons, labor union, organization, or corporation desig

nated either by a utility or greup of utilities or by its

or their employees to act or do for them.

4. The term “collective bargaining’’ shall be under

stood to embody the philosophy of bargaining by em.

ployees through representatives of their own choosing.

‘and shall include the right of representatives of employees’

units to be consulted and to bargain upon the exceptiona’

-yas well as the routine wages, hours, rules, and workin:

conditions.

5. The term ‘labor dispute’ shall involve any contro. -

versy between employer and employees as to hours, wages.

and working conditions. The fact that employees have

amicable relations with their emplovers shall not preclude

the existence of a dispute among them concerning their

representative for’ collective bargaining purposes.

6. The term ‘temployee’* shall refer to anyone in the

service of another, actually engaged in or connected with

the operation of any public ‘utility throughout the state.

- 7. The term ‘tboard’’ shall mean the state board of,

mediation. - ;

299.080. Garernor to appoint state board of medrativ:

—members—yuatifications—terins—racancy.—1. Within

thirty days after the effective date of this chapter the

governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate.

shall appoint five competent persons to. serve as a state

hoard of mediation; two of, whom shall be employers of

labor, or selected from some association representing em-

- plovers of labor, and two of whom shall be employees

holding membership in sorae boua filde irade or labor

union: the fifth shall be some person Who is neither an em-

ployee nor an employer of labor and who shall be chairman

of said state board of mediation. |

2. Two members of said board shall be appointed for

one year, two for two Years, and one for three years, and

all appointments thereafter shall be for three years or

until their respective successors are appointed in the man

ner herein provided.

; 51

3. Ifa vacaney vccurs in said Board by death or other

wise, at any time, the governor shall appoint some com

petent person having the same qualifications as his prede-

cessor to fill the’ unexpired term.

295.0480. Oath of omembers—main office—meetings.--

Each member of said board shall, before entering upon the

duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath to support

the Constitution of the United States and this state and to

demean. himself faithfulix in his office. The main office

of thie state board of mediation shall be in vefferson City,

but the board may hold meetings at any time or any place

in the state whenever the same shall beeome necessary,

and taree members of the board*shall constitute a quorum

for the transaction of business.

295.050, Duties of chairman, — The chairman of the

board shall devote his full time to his duties and: shall

have charge of the office of the board. He shall keep all

records of the proceedings of the board, and shall super-

vise -the work of the employees of the board, and shall

‘have sveh other powers and duties as may be conferred, or

imposed upon him by the board. |

295.060. Compensation and experses of board members.

—The chairman of the board shall receive a salary of five

thousand dollars per.annum, payable’ monthly; each of the

other members of the state board -of mediation shall re-

velve fifteen dollars per day for the time spent in the

performanee of their duties. All members shall receive

traveling and other expenses incurred in the performance

of their duties. er

295.070. Powers and- duties of board.—1.. -The state

hoard of mediation shall have power to. employ and. fix

the compensation of conciliators and other assistants and.

to delegate to such assistants such powers as may be neces-

sory to carry out its duties under this chapter. The board

cutie, *

shall by regulation prescribe the methods of procedur:

before it. o

2. The board shall have power to issue subpoenas ére

quiring the attendance and testinony of witnesses and the

production of evidence which relates to any matter up

der investigation by the board. In cases of refusal to

obey a subpoena issued by the board the cireuit court 0:

Cole county or of any county where the. person refusing

‘to obey such subpoena may be found, on application |)

the board, shall have power to issue an order requiring

such person to appear before the board and to testify an

produce evidence ordered touching the matter under ir

vestigation, and any failure to obey such order shall }«

punished by the court as a contempt thereof.

295.080. Labor disputes—action by board. —1.— Upor

receipt of notice of any labor dispute between partic-

subject to this chapter,-the board shall require such var

ties to keep it advised as to the progress of negotiations

therein.

2. Upon application’ of either party to a labor dispute

or upon its own motion the hoard may fix a time ay

place for a conference between the parties to the disput

and the board or its representative, upon the issues in

volved in the labor dispute and shall take whatever step-

it deems expedient to bring about a settloment of the

dispute including assisting in gegotiating and draftins

a settlement agreement. |

3. It shall be the duty of all parties to a labor disp

to respond to the. summons of the board for joint or sev-

eral conferences ‘with it or with its representatives and

to continue in such conference until exeused, by the boar:

or its representative.

295.090. Labor agreements — renewal.— All collective

hargaining labor agreements hereafter entered inte be

tween the management of a utility and its employees

or-any craft or class of employees shall be reduced te

writing and continue for a period of not less than one year

from the date of the expiration of the previous agree-

ment entered into between the management of the utility

and its employees or if there has been no such previous

agreement then for a period of not less than one year from

the date of the actual execution of the agreement. Such

agreement shall be presumed to continue in foree and ef-

fect from vear to year after the date fixed for its orig-

inal termination unless cither or both parties thereto in-

form,the other, in writing, of the specific changes desired

to be made therein and shall also file a copy of such de-

mands with the state board of mediation, at least sixty

days before the original termination date of (sic) sixty days

hefore the end of any vearly renewal period, or sixty

days befere any termination date desired thereafter.

295.100, Changes in labor agreement — notice. —1.° In)

the case of all existing labor contracts, agreements or

underst. ndings which do not pravide for at least a sixty-

dav notice of desired changes and which contracts, agree-

ments or understandii.gs terminate after seventy days fol-

lowing the effecive date of this chapter, the parties thereto

shall nevertheless inform, in writing, the other party or

parties of any specific changes desired te be made in said .

contract, agreement or. understanding and file a copy of

such desired changes with the state. board of mediation

at least sixty days before the date fixed for the termina-

tion of said contract, agreement or understanding.

2. In the case of labor contraets, agreements or un-

derstandings’ terminating Within’ seventy days after, this

chapter shall heeome effective, the parties thereto shall

forthwith, or not later than ten days after the &tfective

date of this chapter, inform the other party, in writing.

‘of the specifie changes desired to be made in said con-

tract, agreement or understanding and promptly file

copy of such demands with the state board of mediation

295.110. Changes in employment terms in absence o'

labor contract —Whenever, after the effective date of thi:

chapter, a situation exists in any utility whereby em.-

‘ployees are rendering services under terms and condi-

tions which were not at the time this chapter becomes ef.

fective and which have not heretofore been the subjec:

of the contract, and said emplovees desire to effeetur

a change in the terms of employment or a utility desire-

to effectuate a change in said terms of entployment the»

and in that event, it shall be the duty of the party desir.

ing such change, not less. than sixty dats prior to the de-

sired effective date thereof, to inform the other party in

writing of the specifie changes so desired in the manne;

in which they are desired, either by written contract or

otherwise and fo file a copy of such terms with the state

hoard of mediation. - ; .

295.120. Public hearing panel — members — powers —

hearnas.+1. In the event that management of a utility

and the representatives for collective bargaining pur:

poses of any craft or group of emplovees of such utility

shall not have reached and executed a final agreement in

writing as to all conditions of, employment affecting sueh

employees on or before the termination date of any ex-

isting contract, agreement or understanding or any re-

newal thereof, or unless the parties shall have, before

said date, agreed to submit any and all disputes between

them to arbitation, the management of such utility and the

representatives of such employees shall, within five day-

after such termination date, each designate, in writing.

a person as a-public hearing panel member and file such

designation with the state board of mediation; the two

persons so designated shall choose a third disinterested!

and impartial person and. these three shall compose ani

act as a panel.

. ~~

2. The panel shall promptly proceed and within fifteen

days following their designation hold and complete public

hearings on the specifie changes so requested, to the eon-

tyact, agreement or understanding. Said period of fifteen

days may be extended by the mutual written consent of the

parties. The panel shall give to each party full notice and

opportunity to be heard, but the failure of either party to

appear before the panel at the time and place fixed hy it

shall not deprive the panel of jurisdiction to proceed to a

hearing and to make report thereon as herein provided.

205.180. Appearance tn person or by counsel—notive of

hearing.—Parties may be heard either in’ person ‘or by

counsel as they may elect, and the panel shall give due

notice of all hearings to the employee or employees or their

representatives and the public utility oF utilities involved

in the labor dispute.

295.140. Selection of party representatives.-—Repres 11-

tatives for the purposes of ‘this chapter shall be dlosisnated

by the respective parties without interference, influence or

coercion by either party over the designation of represen-

tatives by the other. Representatives of employees for the

purpose of this chapter need not be persons in the employ

of the utility. .

295.150. Report of hearing to qovernar:—Within five

days after.closing such hearings the panel shall file with

the governor, in writing, a report setting forth a statement

of the con roversy, a resumé of the evidence submitted to it

and its recommendations based thereon.

295.160. . Appointment of representatives by board when

not desiqnated by pa:ties.—1. Tn the event either manave-

ment of the utility involved or the representatives of the

employees for collective bargaining purposes shall fail or

neglect to designate, as herein provided, such a person to

represent it-upon the panel or the two so designated shall

fail to agree upon the third member of the panel, within

« 56

ten days after the date fixed for the termination of such

contract, agreement or understanding or upon failure to

file such designations or any of them with the state board

of mediation within said ten-day period, the state board of

mediation shall appoint such person ‘or persons, selecting

in each case a person qualified by previous experience or

employment to represent employers, employees or the pub

lie as the case may require.

? Should both management and the volenestative sat

the employees fail or neglect to designate representatives

upon said panel within the time herein required, then the

state board of mediation shall appoint a panel ‘of thier

persons, to be seleeted as follows; one to represent man

agement of the utility, giving the management forty-cight

hours to select its preference from a list ‘of five. persons

submitted. by the board to the management before designat

ing such person; one to represent the employees involved.

viving their representative forty-eight hours to select their

preference from a list of five persons submitted by the

board to such representative, before designating such per-

son; and one to act as the impartial third person. Failure

on the part of either party to make such selection shall not

prevent the board from appointing the members of the

panel from the lists submitted. |

295.170. Proceedings not to supersede roluntary arh-

tration.—Compulsory arbitration, as provided in this chayp-

ier, shall not be effeetive in disputes where voluntary

arbitration is a part of the contract between the disputing

parties. In the event that through the voluntary arbitra.

tion disputing parties cannot agree, the state board

mediation shall then enforee the compulsory arbitration as

provided. \ y,

Sienna

295.180. Utility strike—pow er of qovernor.—1. Should

either the utility: or its employees refuse to. accept and

abide by the recommendations made pursuant to the provi:

siope of this chapter and as a result thereof the effective

operation of a public utility be threatened or interrupted,

or should either party in a labor dispute between a utility

and its employees, after having given sixty days’ notice

thereof, or failing to give such notice, engage in any strike,

work stoppage or lockout which, in the opinion of the

governor, Will result in the failure to continue the operation

of the publie utility, and threatens the public interest,

health and welfare, or in the event that neither side has

given notice tothe other of an intention to seek a change”

in working conditions, and there occurs a lockout, strike or

work stoppage which, in the opinion of the governor,

threatens to impair the operation of the utility so as to

interfere with the public interest, health and welfare, then’

and in that Gase he is authoriz.¢ to take immediate posses-

sion of the plani, equipment or facility for the use and

operation by the state of Missouri in the publie interest.

2. Such power and authority may be exercised by the

governor through such department or agenev of the govern.

ment as he may designate and may be exercised after his

investigatien and proclamation that there is a threatened

or actual interruption of the operation of such public

utilitv-as the result of a labor dispute, a threatened or

actual strike, a lockout or other labor disturbanee, and that

the public interest, health and welfare are jeopardized, and

that the exercise of such authority is necessary to insure

the operation off such public. utility; provided, that when-

ever such public utility, its plant, equipment or facility has

_ been or is hereafter so taken by reason of a strike, lockout,

threatened strike, threatened lockout, work stoppage or

slowdown, or other cause, such utility, plant, equipment or

facility shall be returned to the owners thereof as soon as

practicable after the settlement of said labor dispute, arid

it shall thereupon be the duty of such utility to continue

the operation of-the plant, facility, or equipment in aeccord-

ance with its franchise @nd certificate of public convenienc:

and necessity.

295.190. Governor to, prese ribe vib 8 aiid requlations,—

The governor is authorized to prescribe the necessary rules

and regulations to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

295.200. . Unlawful acts-penalties—enforcement of pro-

visions.—1. It shall be unlawful for any. person, employee,

or representative as defined in this chapter to call, incite,

support or participate in any strike or concerted refusal to

work for any utility or for the state after any plant, equip-

ment or facility has been taken over Dy the state under this

chapter, as means of enforeing any demands against the

utility or against the state.

2.. It shall be unlawful for any public utility to entploy

any person or employee who has violated paragraph 1 of

this section except that such person or employee may be

employ ed only as a new employee.

3.. Any labor organization ov labor union which v ‘olates

paragraph 1 of this:section shall forfeit and pay to the

state of Missouri forthe use of ‘the publie school fund of

the state, the sum of ten thousand dollars for each day any

work stoppage resulting from any strike which it has called.

incited, or supported, continues, to be recovered by civil

action in the name of the ste and against the labor

organization or labor union ‘in its commonly used name.

4. Any officer of any labor organization or lahor union

representing employees of public utilities who participates:

in calling, inciting or supporting any strike in violation of |

paragraph 1 of this section shall forfeit and pay to the

state of Missouri, for the use of the?public school fund of

the state, the sum of one thousand dollars to be recovered:

by civil action in the name of the state and against such

officer. -

5. Any public utility that engages in a lockout whieb

39 |

brings about a work stoppage shall forfeit and pay to the

siate of Missouri, for yhe use of the public’ schoul fund of

the state, the sum of ten thousand dollars for each day of

work stoppage caused by such lockout, said, amount to. be

recovered by civil action in the name of the state and

against the public utility; provided further, that if, upon

any investigation, supported by competent ev idence, by the

state. board of mediation, it shall appear that any public -

utility has refused to bargain collectively in good _faith with

its employees over the terms and conditions of émployment,

said state board.vf mediation shall certify such record and _

proceedings to the public service commission, and, upon

consideration of the facts in such-record and proceedings

the publie service commission shall find that the evidenée

justifies such action, it may revoke the certifies ite of. con-

veitle nce and necessity of such public utility or impose such

other *vonditions upon such public utility as may he. pro-

vided by law. Any such action] by said public service

commission shall be subjeet to an in the courts of this

state in the same-manner asother orders or decisions of

said commission.

6. The courts of this state shall have power to enforce

by injunction or other legal or equitable- remedies any

provision of this chapter or any rule or regulation pre

scribed by the governor hereunder.

299.210. Meaning of law.—No employee shall he re-

quired to render labor or service, without his consent; nor

shall anything in this chapter be construed to make the

quitting of his labor or services by an individual employee

an illegal act; nor shall any court issue any process to

compel the performance by an individual emplovee of such

labor or service without his consent.

APPENDIX F.

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,

AS AMENDED. |

Section 1. The denial by some employers of the right of

employees to organize and the refusal by some empivyers

to accept the procedure of collective. bargaining lead to

strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which

have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or

obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency,

safety, or operation of the instrumentalities ef commerce;

(b) occurring in the current of commerce; (¢} materia!l

affecting, restraining, or controlling the How of raw: mate-

rials or manufactured or processed goods from or into the

channels of commerce, or the prices of Such materials o

goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution. of employ

ment and wages in-such volume as substantially to impair

or disrupt the market for goods flowing from or into the

channels of commerce.

The inequality of bargaining power. between employees

who do not possess full freedom of association 6r actual

liberty of contract, and employers’ who are organized 1:

the corporate or other forms of ownership association su

stantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, ani

tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions. by

depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of way

earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization ot

competitive wage rates and working conditions within and

between industries.

Experience has proved that protection by law of the righ

of employees to organize and bargain collectively , sate

— guards commerce from injury, Impairment, or interruption,

and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain

recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by en-

couraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment

of industrial disputes arising oat of ditferences as to wages,

heufs, or other working conditions, ‘and’ by restoring

equality of bargaining power between , emplovers and

employees,

Experience has further demonstrated that certain prac-

tices hy some labor organizations, their officers, and mem-

hers have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or

obstructing commerce -by. preventing the free flow of goods

in such commerce through strikes and other forms of indus-

Jrial unrest or through concerted activities which impair

the interest of the public in the free flow of such commerce.

The elimination of such practices is a necessary condition

to the assurance of the rights herein guaranteed,

It is hereby declared to be the poliey of the United

States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial ob-

structions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and

eliminate these obstructions when they have oceurred by

eneouraging the practice and procedure of collective har-

xaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full

freedom of association, self-organization, and designation

of representatives of their gwn choosing, for the purpose of

negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment

or other mutual aid or protection.

Section 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organi-

zation, to form, join, or assist dabor organizi itions, to

hargain collectively through representatives of their own

choosing, and to engage in other concerted ‘activities for

the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or

protection, and shallalso have the right to refrain from any

or all of such activities except.te the extent that such right

may he atfeeted by an agreement requiring membership in

a labor organization as a condition of. employment as

authorized in section:8(a) (3). °

Section 13. - Nothing in this Act, except as specifically

provided for herein, shall be construed so as either to inter-

fere with or impede or diminish in any-way the right to

strike, or to affect the limitations or qualifications on that

right.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.