Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Civil Litigation No. 09-02-217-CV, 4/10/2003. Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS: The appellants, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 479, Chris Kibbe, Sabine Area Building & Construction Trades Council and Joseph Arabie, ask this court to dissolve a temporary injunction entered against them at the request of Becon Construction Co. Inc. The order restrains appellants from mass picketing in violation of Texas Labor Code �101.152. HOLDING: The injunction is reversed, declared void and dissolved. The appellant asks, did the trial court err in exercising jurisdiction over a labor-management dispute in the absence of “violence and imminent threats to the public order”, in violation of the rule of San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959)? The order in this case does not enjoin “all picketing,” but only that picketing which creates an obstacle to the free ingress to and egress from the premises. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized such conduct is not pre-empted by federal regulation under the NLRA. No showing of violence or imminent threat to public order is required. The court addresses Becon’s contention that appellants waived any issue concerning failure to comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. Becon relies upon this court’s opinion in Fleming Cos. v. Due, 715 S.W.2d 855 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 1986, no writ). Flemingwas decided prior to InterFirst Bank San Felipe N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1986), wherein the Texas Supreme Court held the requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed. The court further held when an order of temporary injunction fails to adhere to these requirements it is subject to being declared void and dissolved. “[T]he great weight of authority following InterFirstmilitates against validating the defective order by means of waiver.” Evans v. C. Woods Inc., 34 S.W.3d 581 (Tex. App. – Tyler 1999, no pet.). In light of InterFirst, the court finds any reliance on Flemingto be misplaced. The court addresses appellants’ claim the injunction fails to set forth the reasons for its issuance, in violation of Rule 683. A temporary injunction order is invalid if it does not state the reason why injury will be suffered if the interlocutory relief is not ordered. Moreno v. Baker Tools Inc., 808 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ). The injunction must be declared void and dissolved if it fails to identify probable interim injury that will be suffered if it does not issue. The reasons given by the trial court for granting a temporary injunction must be specific and legally sufficient, and not mere conclusory statements. University Interscholastic League v. Torres, 616 S.W.2d 355 (Tex. Civ. App. – San Antonio 1981, no writ). “[B]ecause probable injury subsumes the elements of irreparable injury and no adequate remedy at law, a valid injunction must articulate the reasons why the identified probable injury is an irreparable one for which [applicants] have no adequate legal remedy.” Fasken v. Darby,901 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. App. – El Paso 1995, no writ). Consequently, the specificity required by Rule 683 is not satisfied by “the mere recital of `no adequate remedy at law’ and `irreparable harm.’” Torres. In Stoner v. Thompson, 553 S.W.2d 150 (Tex. Civ. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.), the trial court concluded “the situation which presently exists is harmful. . . .” The court of appeals found the trial court’s conclusion “is not a reason why injury will be suffered if the interlocutory relief is not ordered. The failure to include in the order a reason why the court deems issuance of the writ proper for preventing injury to the applicant is reversible error.” The injunction in this case reads, in pertinent part, “[T]he Court finds that the Defendants have and continue to violate the provisions of Texas Labor Code �101.152 causing irreparable harm to Becon Construction Co.” This does not constitute a reason why injury will be suffered if the interlocutory relief is not ordered. It does not identify the probable interim injury that will be suffered if it does not issue. It does not articulate why the injury (were it identified) is an irreparable one for which Becon has no adequate legal remedy. Consequently, the court finds the order fails to meet the requirements of Rule 683. Becon’s contention that Garcia v. Tubbs, 300 S.W.2d 736 (Tex. Civ. App. – Beaumont 1957, writ ref’d n.r.e.), controls is without merit. Garciapreceded State v. Cook United Inc., 464 S.W.2d 105 (Tex. 1971), wherein the Texas Supreme Court expressly held “[u]nder Rule 683 the reason for the granting of a temporary injunction must be stated in the order. . . . [I]t is necessary to give the reasons why injury will be suffered if the interlocutory relief is not ordered.” OPINION: Burgess, J.; McKeithen, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ. DISSENT: Gaultney, J. “Obstructing construction workers trying to enter a construction site interferes with the construction. The irreparable harm is obvious, and is sufficiently described in the order. I would affirm the trial court’s order. I therefore respectfully dissent.”

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.