Colorado § 8-3-101 - Short title.

§ 8-3-101. Short title.

This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Labor Peace Act".

Source: L. 43: p. 417, § 24. CSA: C. 97, § 94(24). CRS 53: § 80-5-21. C.R.S. 1963: § 80-4-21.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Some Legal Aspects of the Colorado Coal Strike", see 4 Den. B. Ass'n Rec. 22 (Dec. 1927). For article, "Governmental Adjustment of Colorado's Industrial Disputes 1915-1930", see 3 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 223 (1931). For note, "The Constitutionality of the Labor Peace Act", see 18 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 52 (1945). For article, "An Analysis of the Colorado Labor Peace Act", see 19 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 359 (1947). For article, "The Extent to Which Taft-Hartley Act Has Superseded State Labor Laws", see 28 Dicta 47 (1951). For article, "Picketing — Free Speech?", see 28 Dicta 61 (1951). For article, "One Year Review of Cases on Contracts", see 33 Dicta 57 (1956). For case note, "Uncertain Status of Public Sector Labor Arbitration in Colorado", see 48 U. Colo. L. Rev. 451 (1977). For article, "The Regional Transportation District Strike and the Colorado Labor Peace Act: A Study in Public Sector Collective Bargaining", see 54 U. Colo. L. Rev. 203 (1983).

The labor peace act, enacted in 1943, is a comprehensive statute regulating the conduct of parties to a labor dispute. City of Golden v. Ford, 141 Colo. 472, 348 P.2d 951 (1960).

Consequently, a municipal ordinance insofar as it deals with the conduct of parties to a "labor dispute" in an attempt to cover in a different and sometimes conflicting manner the same field as is covered by the labor peace act must be held without force or effect; for municipalities are creatures of either legislative enactment or constitutional provision, having only powers expressly or impliedly granted to them, and no statute or constitutional provision has expressly given cities power to regulate labor disputes, nor can such be said to be an implied power when the proper conduct of labor activities is a matter of statewide concern. City of Golden v. Ford, 141 Colo. 472, 348 P.2d 951 (1960).

However, the labor peace act is itself inapplicable where preempted by federal labor legislation. Bldg. Constr. Trades Council v. Am. Bldrs., Inc., 139 Colo. 236, 337 P.2d 953 (1959).

Invalidity of such provisions to be determined by federal courts. Questions raised as to the invalidity of such provisions by virtue of the federal constitution and the jurisdiction of the state courts with the passage of federal labor acts must be determined by the federal courts. Denver Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Shore, 124 Colo. 57, 234 P.2d 620 (1951).

But this article as a whole is not unconstitutional upon the theory that, as to employees engaged in interstate commerce, it infringes upon the field preempted by the national labor relations act and upon the ground that it is in direct conflict with federal legislation. Am. Fed'n of Labor v. Reilly, 113 Colo. 90, 155 P.2d 145 (1944).

Nor is this article unconstitutional on the ground that the definition of a "labor dispute" in subsection (13) of § 8-3-104 is too narrow. Denver Milk Producers v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 116 Colo. 389, 183 P.2d 529 (1947).

Employer's alleged violation of act did not foreclose his right to independent remedy. Where employer alleged in its affirmative defenses and counterclaim that plaintiffs' activities violated the "Colorado labor peace act", such allegation did not foreclose the employer's right to an independent remedy, and the employer was not obliged to first utilize the administrative provisions of the act in seeking a remedy. Pipeliners Local 798 v. Ellerd, 503 F.2d 1193 (10th Cir. 1974).

The labor peace act is not restricted in its application to industry and trade only. Indus. Comm'n v. Wallace Vill. for Children, 165 Colo. 10, 437 P.2d 62 (1968).

And there is an express recognition of the right of employees to engage in peaceful picketing throughout the provisions of the labor peace act. People ex rel. Shaffer v. Teamster Local 961, 175 Colo. 187, 486 P.2d 10 (1971); Pueblo Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Harper Constr. Co., 134 Colo. 469, 307 P.2d 468 (1957).

If Colorado law is interpreted to allow an action by an employee for violation of a union's duty of fair representation, in order for employee to sustain the action, he must demonstrate that his claim of wrongful discharge has merit, so that it is probable he would have succeeded in any arbitration proceeding. If the union's invocation of arbitration proceedings would not have provided some relief to the employee, its refusal to take such action did not injure the employee. Hoff v. Amal. Transit Un., Div. 662, 758 P.2d 674 (Colo. App. 1987).

Trial court properly dismissed claim that employee was entitled to protection from retaliation on basis of work-related illness or injury or the filing of a claim for worker's compensation under this act where complaint did not allege any fact relating to efforts to organize under the labor peace act. Ferris v. Local 26, 867 P.2d 38 (Colo. App. 1993).