| HIGHWAY MOTOR FREIGHT, INC., | | | CASE NO. 8 |
| A Corporation, | | | |
| | | ||
| Plaintiff. | | | |
| | | ||
| v. | | | ORDER |
| | | ||
| TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS | | | |
| UNION LOCAL NO. 784, Affiliated | | | |
| with International Brotherhood | | | |
| of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, | | | |
| Warehousemen and Helpers | | | |
| of America, A.F. of L., | | | |
| | | ||
| Defendant. | | | |
| | | ||
| and | | | |
| | | ||
| GENERAL DRIVERS AND | | | |
| HELPERS UNION LOCAL NO. 550, | | | |
| affiliated with International | | | |
| Brotherhood of Teamsters, | | | |
| Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and | | | |
| Helpers of America, A.F. of L., | | | |
| | | ||
| Defendant. | | |
Before Judges Tyler, Denney and Moyer
(Editor's Note: By its petition and application for temporary order, filed April 20, 1955, plaintiff prayed the Court to enjoin a strike and settle the dispute by establishing rates of compensation, wages, scales and other conditions of employment. Hearing on the application was held on April 22, 1955. Defendant argued that a temporary order should not issue until evidence could be taken from all proper parties, and that the proper parties were the Central States Drivers Council, and the Small Carriers Association of Nebraska, the bargaining representatives of unions and employers negotiating area-wide agreements, designated as the Central States Area Over-The-Road Motor Freight agreements, and the Central States Over-The-Road Local Cartage agreements, to which plaintiff and defendant had in the past been parties. Plaintiff argued that the proper parties were the local unions which struck defendant as an individual member of the Small Carriers Association, and further argued that the strike against it alone, put it at a competitive disadvantage. Plaintiff also argued that the area-wide agreement would put it at a competition disadvantage by forcing it to pay wages comparable to wages paid in major cities like Chicago, and by forcing it to pay wages higher than those paid by its competitors in Nebraska which, by and large, were not unionized.
Defendant further argued that evidence should be taken to determine whether any impairment of plaintiff's service was "substantial," on the ground that the statute's prohibition against substantial impairment of services was for the protection of the public, not for the protection of the individual employer. Plaintiff argued that the statute forbad strikes and that its verified petition, alleging substantial impairment was sufficient to warrant a temporary order.
Defendant argued that evidence should be taken on the Court's jurisdiction to enter an injunction, alleging that plaintiff was in interstate commerce, and therefore subject to federal law which made strikes a protected activity. Plaintiff argued that it was subject to the regulation of the State Railway Commission, that no judicial decision or decision of the NLRB had held it wholly within the scope of the federal Act, and, that the Court could act in the absence of such a decision. The Court's order, entered April 22, 1955, is published below.)
Now, on this 22d day of April, 1955, at the hour of two o'clock p.m., this case came on to be heard in open Court on the application of plaintiff for a temporary order, and the Court having convened to determine what orders are necessary to insure a prompt hearing and speedy adjudication of the industrial dispute alleged in plaintiff's positively verified petition, the plaintiff and the defendants appearing by their respective counsel, arguments were made and said matter submitted to the court upon the record, the arguments and stipulations of counsel made in open Court.
Whereupon, said matter was submitted to the Court, upon consideration whereof and being fully advised in the premises the Court finds:
1. That a strike is now in progress and has been in progress since April 19, 1955;
2. That said strike is contrary to law;
3. That the public service rendered by plaintiff is being interrupted and interfered with by said strike.
The Court further finds that plaintiff is a public utility and that the business carried on by the plaintiff is an intrastate business in this State, over which the government of the United States has not assumed exclusive regulation and control, and that this Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of this action; and that a temporary order should be entered as prayed in said application.
It is, therefore, ordered, pending the final determination of the issues in this case, that the strike and work stoppage in progress since April 19, 1955, cease forthwith, and the efficiency and continuity of plaintiff's service be restored.
It is further ordered that, pending trial of this cause, the defendants, their members, officers, agents, representatives and all other persons, be and hereby are restrained and enjoined from in any manner interfering with or interrupting the efficiency and continuity of the public utility operated by the plaintiff or in any manner injuring, delaying, limiting, or suspending the continuity or efficiency of said public utility.
BY THE COURT
(The case was settled by the parties and, pursuant to their stipulation, was dismissed on May 16, 1955.)
_______________________________