United Mine Workers of America v. Arkansas Oak Floorings Company

PETITIONER: United Mine Workers of America
RESPONDENT: Arkansas Oak Floorings Company
LOCATION:

DOCKET NO.: 227
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1955-1956)
LOWER COURT:

ARGUED: Jan 23, 1956
DECIDED: Apr 23, 1956

Facts of the case

Question

Media for United Mine Workers of America v. Arkansas Oak Floorings Company

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 23, 1956 (Part 2) in United Mine Workers of America v. Arkansas Oak Floorings Company

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 23, 1956 (Part 1) in United Mine Workers of America v. Arkansas Oak Floorings Company

Earl Warren:

Number 227, United Mine Workers of America versus Arkansas Oak Flooring Company.

Mr. Harris.

Crampton Harris:

If the Court pleases.

The Supreme Court of Louisiana upheld an injunction issued by the District Court to the Ninth Judicial District of Rapides Parish which enjoined peaceful picketing in a primary strike for recognition picketing only by the employees of the Arkansas Oak Flooring company.

And the basis for the issuance of the injunction was that the United Mine Workers of America was not recognized by the National Labor Relations Board that it had not filed the financial reports required by Section 9 (f) and had not filed the non-communist affidavit required by Section 9 (h).

The facts out of which the litigation arose are exceedingly clear.

They're these the Arkansas Flooring Company was engaged in manufacturing oak flooring.

It had a principal office in Pine Bluff, Arkansas and a plant in Alexandria, Louisiana.

They bought some of their lumber in Texas, 20%.

They shipped 90% of the finished product in interstate commerce.

It was admitted during the trial that they were engaged in interstate commerce.

The Arkansas Flooring Company had been in business for about 25 years, but the four years preceding the trial date they had not had a union at the plant in Alexandria.

Along in November and December of 1953, a representative of the District 50 United Mine Workers of America came to Alexandria, organized the employees and got membership cards.

The employees in the plant number 225, membership cards were signed by a 174.

The union was organized, stewards were elected and they asked this representative of the United Mine Workers to go to the plant manager and ask for recognition.

He went to a Mr. Fowler who was in charge of the plant at that time, the man over him was away.

He stated we represent the majority of your employees and we want recognition.

The manager of the -- he showed the manager of the plan his credentials.

The man looked at them.

Mr. Fowler looked at him enough to see that he represented the United Mine Workers of America, District 50.

Well Mr. Harris, what does the allegation mean in the petition here that this was done in the absence of their selection of the union as their representative?

Didn't they allege that in their petition?

If they had a 174 out of 222, I would have thought they would have selected their representative.

Crampton Harris:

Well, I don't know why they put that allegation in because it is definitely contrary to the facts.

The undisputed evidence shows 174 cards had been signed by employees.

At the time of the trial a 179 had been signed.

So the facts of -- that developed on the trial and those cards, two of them are in the record, a blank card and a signed card showing that a 179 men out of 225 had signed asking District 50 to represent --

But if they hadn't been able to show that there'd been a majority or a substantial number, that the case would have been somewhat different, would it not?

If they went before a (Inaudible) to be recognized without having 174 as they allege here in their petition, you get a different case --

Crampton Harris:

Yes.