Washington Law Review
Abstract
At a previous trial P was granted an injunction against picketing by D union after it was found that a labor dispute existed but that one of the objectives of the union was unlawful. The decree was affirmed in Ostroff v. Laundry & Dye Works Local 566, 37 Wn. 2d 595, 225 P. 2d 419 (1950). The basis for the finding of a labor dispute was in the existence of an employer-employee relationship between P and one member of D union. The illegal objective was that P sign a contract with D that he employ only union members in his plant, and only members of D union in the pick-up and delivery of his work. The court said that if the illegal objective were eliminated the injunction would be dissolved. Subsequently, the union eliminated the illegal objective, but K, the only union employee working for P at the time the picketing began, discontinued his picketing duties against P over a year before the present action and has not been actively employed through D union since. Held: K is still to be regarded as an employee of P for the purposes of the case, and since a labor dispute therefore still exists, the injunction is dissolved. Ostroff v. Laundry & Dye Works Local 566, 39 Wn. 2d 693, 237 P. 2d 784 (1951).
First Page
70
Recommended Citation
Robert S. Mucklestone,
Recent Cases,
Labor—Picketing—When Enjoinable,
28 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J.
70
(1953).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol28/iss1/18