If a complainant shall also allege that unless a temporary restraining order shall be issued before such hearing may be had, a substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s property will be unavoidable, such temporary restraining order may be granted as the court may direct by order to show cause.
Such order to show cause shall be served upon such party or parties as are sought to be restrained and as shall be specified in said order, and the restraining order shall issue only upon testimony, or in the discretion of the court, upon affidavits, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the court in issuing a temporary injunction upon a hearing as herein provided for.
No temporary restraining order or temporary injunction shall be issued except on condition that complainant shall first file an undertaking with adequate security, to be fixed by the court, sufficient to recompense those enjoined for any loss, expense or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injunction, including all reasonable costs and expenses against the order or against the granting of any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding and subsequently denied by the court.
History: Laws 1939, ch. 195, § 2; 1941 Comp., § 57-202; 1953 Comp., § 59-2-2.
ANNOTATIONS
“Labor dispute” generally. — No precise or particularized definition of term “labor dispute” is practicable, but in analyzing the facts of each controversy, fact finder must determine that a real and sincere dispute exists bearing some relation to the employer and concerning some aspect of employment in his enterprise and then, before injunctive relief may yet be denied, he must determine that the collective bargaining activities are in furtherance of some legitimate interest of labor and not in contravention of the public policy of state. Pomonis v. Hotel, Rest. & Bartenders’ Local 716, 1952-NMSC-010, 56 N.M. 56, 239 P.2d 1003.
Scope of “labor dispute”. — Judicial determination which confines the meaning of “labor dispute” to direct controversies between employer and employee is inconsistent with the guarantee of freedom of speech. Pomonis v. Hotel, Rest. & Bartenders’ Local 716, 1952-NMSC-010, 56 N.M. 56, 239 P.2d 1003.
Authorization for strike and collective bargaining. — Authorization from majority of employees is not necessarily required before a strike or picketing may be lawfully commenced and although some employees subsequently repudiate their authorizations, these acts cannot retroactively destroy the relationship existing between them and the Union at the time collective bargaining began. Pomonis v. Hotel, Rest. & Bartenders’ Local 716, 1952-NMSC-010, 56 N.M. 56, 239 P.2d 1003.
Unlawful conduct generally. — While court cannot condone isolated instances of violence on the part of pickets in labor dispute, where employers likewise did not conduct themselves at all times in a peaceful manner, the latter cannot in equity complain of these acts. Pomonis v. Hotel, Rest. & Bartenders’ Local 716, 1952-NMSC-010, 56 N.M. 56, 239 P.2d 1003.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 48A Am. Jur. 2d Labor and Labor Relations § 3661 et seq.
51B C.J.S. Labor Relations §§ 911 to 968.