Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Missouri Pacific Railroad v. United Brick & Clay Workers Union Local No. 602
Citations: 218 Ark. 707; 238 S.W.2d 945; 1951 Ark. LEXIS 409; 27 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2576Docket: 4-9406
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; April 9, 1951; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
The lawsuit involves a strike by employees at Acme Brick Company, with picket lines established by the labor union at both the company's gates and near a public highway crossing where a railroad spur leads to the plant. The railroad company seeks to enjoin the union from maintaining the picket line near the railroad crossing, arguing that it disrupts their operations. The chancellor dismissed the railroad's complaint, viewing the evidence favorably for the plaintiff. The union's picket line was set up to communicate with train crews heading to the plant, and although the pickets are mostly inactive, they display signs when trains approach. The railroad's regular crews refuse to cross the picket line, necessitating the use of supervisory employees to operate the trains, which has led to a significant reduction in service frequency. While the railroad concedes the union's right to peaceful picketing, it contends that the current situation is unique due to the isolated nature of the picket line and argues that it unlawfully prevents the railroad from fulfilling its service obligations. However, the court finds this argument unpersuasive, noting that the picketing's intent is not to hinder the railroad's duties but is an incidental effect stemming from the refusal of the railroad's own employees to cross the line. The court suggests that if the railroad's argument were accepted, it could effectively ban all picketing by attributing disruptions to employees’ refusals to cross picket lines. An 1868 statute classifies willful acts that stop or obstruct a railway engine as a misdemeanor, aimed at preventing physical obstructions that endanger lives or property, with the railroad entitled to treble damages for related injuries. The statute does not apply to situations where a passenger pulls an emergency signal, leading to a train being stopped, as established in Commonwealth v. Killian, which clarified that such actions do not constitute criminal obstruction. The law does not suggest that a picket line is unlawful simply because sympathetic railway employees choose not to cross it. The appellant claims that being affected by the picket line constitutes a secondary boycott, which may be unlawful under Arkansas law. However, the picketing is deemed primary, as it is located near Acme's plant without trespass, and its purpose includes discouraging others from engaging with the employer. The fact that the appellant is the only one affected does not change this classification. A similar case, Ryan Construction Corp., confirmed that picketing affecting only one party can still be primary and not an unfair labor practice. The court affirmed the ruling.