# Jurisdictional Statement — Local No. 8-6, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union v. Missouri > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386409_0217%3A4 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Jurisdictional Statement - **Published:** January 1, 1960 - **Citation:** 361 U.S. 363 ## Text [— FILE COPY | pam MAR tf 4 ii “9: | py * iS THE : Supreme Court of the United States — Ocronen Tekm, 1998. a , 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, $12 Olive Street, * St. Louis, Missouri, ) ; Attorneys for Appellants. . TE GUNTHORP. WASREN PR WONG ComPANY, De cage we se res 5 page Opinions Below, Pry Pr ree ree Se yp oar ae Jurisdiction ......-. ee eae Mare ae eee a en pre 2 Question Presented re ee es ities ie waees 2 Statutes Involved .........-. Pie pik ew ete tg eee ea 3 Statement Pe Na ce erate Ac ola Se aeah WC Was ae RL 3 The Statutory Scheme by Whie h Missouri Out- town Strikes in Public Uilities....:.... nea vais 3 B. The Missouri Statute Is Applied to Outlaw a Py Strike by Employees and-Representatives of Km- ployees of Laclede Gas Company... 5.5 5----++> i. Proceedings Below ............5 2.552 55555 tne The Question: is Substantial.0.... 0 ..-- 5+: ee ae Conclusion Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix DW le ele eee ae SO SS LCS CC MO SIE SSR A eee “de at hae a ae ew eS SS ES RS Se il AUTHORITIES CITED. Cases. Amalgamated Ass’n of Street, ete. v. Wisconsin Em- ployment Relations Board, 3840 U.S. 888.000... 10, 11, 12 Burrell v. Martin, 282 F.2d 33. .........0.0...0.4.. 12, 8 Franks Bros. Company v. National Labor Relations ee Oe ave yaw eve beaevneet ces 13 Harris v. Battle, 348 U.S. 808.000.0002... eee 13 Interstate Co. Comm'n vy. Hoboken sere R. C6., 520: ee rare in Luan 12 Local 24, ete. v. Oliver, 358 U.S. 288....0...000..0.. * 2 National Labor Relations Board vy. Mexia Textile Mills, Ine., 889 U.S. 5608....... SAD tert ar SP SS eee ee Ip Oklahoma City Vv. Sanders, 94 FY, 2d 322 (CA. 1)... 08 Rider v. Julian, 282 8S. W. alti Ce Orta 1] Southern Pacifie Terminal Co: vy. Interstate Commerce C ommission, 8 ere fos es 14 Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Comm. Comm., 219 Se Sey a dig h op eis coer ers eke ep ees eee KO 12 State ex rel. State Board 6f Mediation v. Pigg, 362 - Mo. 798, 819, 2448. W. 2d 75.02 eet: ne United States v. Aluminum Company of America, 148 _ eR Deg png oa os ook see we FD ay 14 United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., 307 Us S$. 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, to \ 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 ¢ 4 “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’ 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 19 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. /@ 22 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-— es —_—_- 23 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, 24 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: 2h 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 26 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 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. 42 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 45 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, a . 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 / | 44 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 re 4) ¢ - 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. 49 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. 50 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, * 32 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 r 43 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- 54 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. . ~~ v 59 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: 57 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 61 — 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 62 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. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386409_0217%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.