Sherlock Baking Co. v. Bakery Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union

Ohio Court of Appeals

Sherlock Baking Co. v. Bakery Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union

173 N.E.2d 686, 111 Ohio App. 443, 15 Ohio Op. 2d 20, 1959 Ohio App. LEXIS 707

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 9, 1959

Docket5249

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 N.E.2d 686 (Sherlock Baking Co. v. Bakery Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sherlock Baking Co. v. Bakery Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union, 173 N.E.2d 686, 111 Ohio App. 443, 15 Ohio Op. 2d 20, 1959 Ohio App. LEXIS 707 (Ohio Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinions

Notwithstanding that "stranger picketing" sought to be enjoined in the instant case is unlawful as against the public policy of Ohio (Chucales v. Royalty, 164 Ohio St. 214,129 N.E.2d 823, certiorari denied, 351 U.S. 926, 100 L. Ed., 1456, *Page 444 76 S. Ct., 781; P. S. Operating Co. v. Brotherhood, 168 Ohio St. 73,151 N.E.2d 364; Richmond Bros. Co. v.Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 168 Ohio St. 560,157 N.E.2d 101, certiorari denied, 361 U.S. 8384 L. E. [2d], 77, 80 S. Ct., 53), it appearing that the activity of the defendants sought to be enjoined is arguably subject to the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, jurisdiction of which is initially conferred upon the National Labor Relations Board (San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon [April 20, 1959], 359 U.S. 236, 3 L. Ed. [2d], 775,79 S. Ct., 773), the Common Pleas Court has no jurisdiction to determine the controversy, and the judgment of the Common Pleas Court dismissing the petition for want of jurisdiction must be affirmed.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is affirmed and the cause is remanded thereto for execution for costs.

Judgment affirmed.

SMITH, J., concurs.

DEEDS, J. I concur in a finding that both the trial court and this court are without jurisdiction to consider the subject matter (the controversy between the parties).

My view, therefore, is that the appeal should be dismissed and the cause remanded for execution for costs. *Page 445

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Notwithstanding that "stranger picketing" sought to be enjoined in the instant case is unlawful as against the public policy of Ohio (Chucales v. Royalty, 164 Ohio St. 214,129 N.E.2d 823, certiorari denied, 351 U.S. 926, 100 L. Ed., 1456, *Page 444 76 S. Ct., 781; P. S. Operating Co. v. Brotherhood, 168 Ohio St. 73,151 N.E.2d 364; Richmond Bros. Co. v.Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 168 Ohio St. 560,157 N.E.2d 101, certiorari denied, 361 U.S. 8384 L. E. [2d], 77, 80 S. Ct., 53), it appearing that the activity of the defendants sought to be enjoined is arguably subject to the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, jurisdiction of which is initially conferred upon the National Labor Relations Board (San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon [April 20, 1959], 359 U.S. 236, 3 L. Ed. [2d], 775,79 S. Ct., 773), the Common Pleas Court has no jurisdiction to determine the controversy, and the judgment of the Common Pleas Court dismissing the petition for want of jurisdiction must be affirmed.