# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers v. Lucas Flour Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386410_0069%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1962 - **Citation:** 369 U.S. 95 ## Text Oftice-Supreme Court, U.S: : FILED FEB 11 196] LIBRARY co. rc JRT. U. & [amas BR BROWNING, Clerk a IN THE Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1967 LOCAL 174, TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, an unincorporated Association, Petitioner, 2 vw. LUCAS FLOUR COMPANY, a Washington corporation, Respondent. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Of Counsel MacDonald, Hoague & Bayless FRANCIS HOAGUE 320 Alaska Building 320 Alaska Building Seattle 4, Washington Z Seattle 4, Washington Counsel for Petitioner ——— EE we tRoro. ivan press AND WESTERN i SUBJECT INDEX Page Citations to Opinions Below.............:-:2:::.110-..0000-00--00- nee Grounds Upon Which Jurisdiction Is Invoked................ 2 aU II fancies cccnncpasennsigeesoccgcencn 2 A. Federal pre-emption as against tort action............ 3° B. Va ae ee 3 Statutory Provisions Involved ...c.c-sc-scceocvcesscceeeeeeneee 4 PU i oes ie seme 4 Fa RN ect ORI ev POTTS SEED 4 B. How Federal questions were presented ................ 8 Reasons for Granting Petition 0.2... 9 i NCEE NCES ER OPI RO =n 9 A. The conclusions reached by the Washington Supreme Court regarding pre-emption are contrary to the decision of this Court in San Diego Building Trades Council v. B. By characterizing the protected or prohibited ™“_ . activity as a vio of a contractual right, as in this case, state Courts can circumvent the exclusive initial jurisdiction of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board in most situa- TE Wins ae 138 * A. The opinion below is in direct conflict with the decision of this Court in Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills ...0.....02......0...cecccceseeceee 13 ii Page B. The judgment below enforces local contract law that is incompatible with §301 of the >» Taft-Hartley Act and that has therefore been pre-empted by that act ..................-cesceccessessee: 14 C. The decision below, in direct conflict with principles followed in decisions of at least three Circuit Courts of A regarding the §301 no-strike issue, holds that it is a con- tract violation for a union to strike, even pr the union never agreed either ex- press III. This Strike Was Not a Violation of This Col- lective Bargaining Agreement Within the Mean- ing of §301 eeses B ccceacaconsquonscsocsnens : ec A. No intent to prohibit strike against a dis- charge of a union member appears in this B. The purposes of the Taft-Hartley Act dictate that strike prohibitions, unless #ktended, should not be imported to a contract merely because momentarily convenient .................. 18 IV. Widespread Importance to Industries and Unions of the Issues Determined in Decision Below ........ PRESENCE OC rm Soe 19 A. If the decision below as to pre-emption is allowed to stand, it will.bring about lack of uniformity to most interstate labor cases...... 19 B. For certainty in existing labor-agreemen nts, and in those to be negotiated;it is essential that the contract and pre-emption questions here in issue be resolved.............22....0.-..-c0000--. 21 Page C. The protection afforded emp by §7 of the Taft-Hartley Act will be ae ents re- duced, should the decision below stand........ 22 Conclusion oe SEAR SE SS ey ORL EDO 22 Appendices: : Appendix A. Opinion of Washington om: Supreme Court ....................- App. p. 1 Appendix B. Judgment of the Washington Supreme Court ............ seeeaeag App. p. 12 Appendix C. Pertinent Sections of the . Taft-Hartley Act ................. -App. p. 18 Appendix D. Private Carrier Agreement......App. p. 16 TABLE OF CASES v. Teamsters C. & H. Union, U. S. 485, 98 L.ed. 228, 74 S. Ct. 161 (1953)....14-15 International Association of Machinisis v. Gonzales, 356 U. S. 617, Sing (Me) 1018, 17 S.Ct. 923 (1958) 12 International Union, U. M. W. of A. o. N. L. R. B., 257 F.(2d) 211 (App. D. C. 1958) q...ccccsceoreennee 11 Lewis v. Benedict Coal Corp., 259 F.(2d) 346 (CCA 6, 1958), aff'd 361 U. S. 459, 4 L.ed.(2d) 442, 80 S. Ct. te 16 A ALLL” LL NOTE: _ ” . / Page Local 774, I. A. M. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 185 Kans. 183, 341 P.(2d) 989 (1959)........................ 13 Local 9735, U. M. W. o. N. L. R. B., 258 F.(2d) 146 Lm TI sii scisetesenniteins dae isnot ll San Diego Trades Council vc. Garmon, 359 U. S. 936, $ L.ed.(2d) 775, 79 S. Ct. 773 (1959)....7-11 Selles v. Local 174, I. B. T., 50 Wn.(2d) 660, 314 P. (2d) 456 (1957) cert. den. 356 U. S. 975, 2 L.ed. (2d) 1140, 78 S. Ct. 1134 (1958) eee ecceececeeseseesene 12 Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, 1 Led.(2d) 972, 77 S. Ct. 912 (1957) ener 13, 14 U. A. W. v. Russell, 356 U. S. 634, 2 L.ed.(2d) 1030, y $B ___. Bane ay NER aire Eres ates nore 12 United Construction Workers v. Haislip Baking Co., 223 F.(2d) 872 ee 350 U. S. 347 Se wiaecchdtnnttcnsesveesstbtbemie 16 U. M.W.A.v.N.L.R.B., SL F (98) M1, OS SRR Sek Seema 16, 17 United Mine Workers of America and Boone County Coal Corp., 117 N. L. R. B. 1095 (1957)...................... 11 United Mine Workers Union and Westmoreland Coal Company, 117 N. L. R. B. 1072 (1957) 86.00 3.22% Extra and Drivers of Trucks 20,000 Ibs. and under 2.224, 3.33% Extra Drivers of Trucks over 20,000 Ibs. 2.32% 3.483), 21 EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 1957 All regular employees shall be guaranteed a full week's work. | 4 PER HOUR PER WEEK OVERTIME Trucks with Gross License Capacity 20,000 Ibs. and under $91.80 $3.441, Over 20,000 Ibs. 93.80 3.5134 Semi Trucks and Trucks and Trailers 95.80 3.5914 Steady Helpers and Bull Drivers 88.80 3.33 Extra Helpers and Drivers of Trucks a 20,000 Ibs. and under 2.291% 3.4414 Extra Drivers of Trucks over 20,000 Ibs. 2.391, 3.591, ARTICLE XI Night shift premium of fifteen cents (15c) per hour shall be paid for all second shift work performed between the hours of 6:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. As of April 1, 1955, each company shall pay into a Health and Welfare Fund the sum of $10.40 per month for every employee covered by this agreement who worked eighty (80) hours or more in the month of March, 1955, and thereafter shall pay $10.40 per month for each eligible employee, employed eighty (80) hours or more during the preceding month, said payment to be gnade on or before the tenth (10th) day of each month. ARTICLE XII Commencing October 1, 1955, and during continuance of this Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Employer shall pay into the Western Conference of Teamsters Pen- ~~sion Trust Fund on account of each member of the bar- gaining unit an amount equal to ten cents (10c) for each hour for which compensation is paid to him, said amounts 22 to be computed monthly. The total amount due for each | calendar month shall be remitted in a lump sum not later than ten days after the last business day of each month. The Employer agrees to abide by such rules as-may be established by the Trustees of said Trust Fund to facilitate the determination of the hours for which contributions are due, the prompt and orderly collection of such amounts, and the accurate reporting and recording of such hours and such amounts paid on account of each member of the bargaining unit. Failure to make all payments herein provided for, within the time specified, shall be a breach of this agreement. : ARTICLE XIII In the event of war, declaration of emergency, imposi- tion of civilian wage controls by the U. S. Government during the life of this contract, either party may reopen the same upon thirty (30) days written notice and re- quest renegotiation of matters dealing with wages and hours. Upon the failure of the parties to agree in such negotiations, either party shall be permitted all lawful economic recourse to support their request for revisions. If governmental approval of revisions should become nec- essary, all parties will cooperate to the utmost to attain such approval. The parties agree that the notice provided herein shall be accepted by all parties as compliance with the notice requirements of applicable law so as to Epona economic action at the expiration thereof. _ ARTICLE XIV Should any difference as to the true interpretation of 23 this agreement arise, same shall be submitted to a Board of Arbitration of two members, one representing the firm, and one representing the Union. If said members cannot agree, a third member, who must be a disinterested party shall be selected, and the decision of the said Board of Arbitration shall be binding. It is further agreed by both parties hereto that during such arbitration, there shall be no suspension of work. . Should any difference arise between the employer and the employee, same snall be submitted to arbitration by both parties. Failing to agree, they shall mutually appoint a third person whose decision shall be final and binding. If any employee is removed from service for any doubt- ful cause, jie shall have a fair and impartial investigation . within three days.. If-found guilty, he shall suffer the pen- alty, and if not, he shall be paid for his time off at the regular scale of wages. ‘For THE: INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS or America, Locat Union 174 GeorcE Cavano, Secretary-Treasurer --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386410_0069%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.