MILLWRIGHTS AND MACHINERY ERECTORS, A.F.L.-C.I.O., LOCAL UNION 1510, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court deferred its decision on the jurisdiction of the lower court until after the lower court made a final decision, as no labor dispute was evident and the picketing seemed aimed at forcing a contract with an outside company.
The court deferred its decision on jurisdiction, indicating that a final decision by the lower court would better inform the appellate court's determination.
“It appears to the court from the pleadings and orders in this case that no labor dispute existed at the plant of the plaintiff below with its own employees, and that the picketing by the defendant union was for the purpose of forcing the plaintiff to contract with an outside company or companies to install certain machinery instead of the company using its own employees to do said installation work.”
This quote establishes the court's initial assessment of the facts, particularly the absence of a direct labor dispute with the company's own employees and the apparent motive for the picketing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant union picketed the plaintiff's plant. The plaintiff alleged that no labor dispute existed between the company and its own employees. The…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Labor Dispute Definition cases and more on FLexlaw
It appears to the court from the pleadings and orders in this case that no labor dispute existed at the plant of the plaintiff below with its own employees, and that the picketing by the defendant union was for the purpose of forcing the plaintiff to contract with an outside company or companies to install certain machinery instead of the company using its own employees to do said installation work.
The court is of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the lower court could be better determined by this court after testimony and final decision by the lower court. Therefore, pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 4.2, subd. f, 31 F.S.A., we are deferring decision in this case until after *314final disposition of the case by the lower court.
ALLEN, C. J., KANNER, J., and STEPHENSON, GUNTER, Associate Judge, concur.