O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 34-6-2 (2019)

Use of force or threats to compel continuance in or departure from employment

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It shall be unlawful for any person, acting alone or in concert with one or more other persons, by the use of force, intimidation, violence, or threats thereof to prevent or attempt to prevent any individual from leaving or continuing in the employment of or from accepting or refusing employment by any employer or from entering or leaving any place of employment of such employer.

History

(Ga. L. 1947, p. 620, § 1.)

Annotations

Cross references. - Freedom of assembly, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. IX.

Law reviews. - For article, ‘‘State Court Injunctions in Labor Disputes,’’ see 10 Ga. St. B. J. 559 (1974).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Picketing not violative of statute. - Picketing by a single picket posted on the highway in front of the employer’s business, bearing a placard which stated that the employer was unfair to the labor union, who did no more than walk slowly back and forth on the public highway, and was guilty of no violence, intimidation, or other misconduct, did not violate this section. The court did not err in denying the prayer of the employer for an interlocutory injunction to prohibit the picketing.

Hallman v. Painters Dist. Council No. 38, 203 Ga. 175, 45 S.E.2d 414 (1947). Cited in Cain v. Phillips, 211 Ga. 806, 89 S.E.2d 163 (1955); International Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Georgia Ports Auth., 217 Ga. 712, 124 S.E.2d 733 (1962); NAACP v. Overstreet, 221 Ga. 16, 142 S.E.2d 816 (1965); Fleming v. Terminal Transp. Co., 222 Ga. 583, 151 S.E.2d 137 (1966); Sams v. Olah, 225 Ga. 497, 169 S.E.2d 790 (1969).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 44B Am. Jur. 2d, Interference, § 44. 48A Am. Jur. 2d, Labor and Labor Relations, §§ 1106, 1660, 1664, 1635, 1673 et seq. C.J.S. - 51 C.J.S., Labor Relations, § 12. 51A C.J.S., Labor Relations, §§ 448 et seq., 516 et seq., 527, 564 et seq., 701. ALR. - The boycott as a weapon in industrial disputes, 32 ALR 779; 116 ALR 484. Parades by strikers, 47 ALR 753. Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute denouncing offense of interfering with or molesting mechanic or laborer, 123 ALR 316. Rights in union label, shop card, or other insignia denoting union shop or workmanship, 42 ALR2d 709.

Discontinuance or suspension by employer of all or part of his operations, or lockout of employees, as unfair labor practice, 20 ALR3d 403. Application of Garmon preemption doctrine by state courts - Construction and transportation industries, 110 ALR5th 111. ‘‘Mass discharge’’ of employees as evidence of unfair labor practice under § 8 (a)(1) and (3) of National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.S. § 158(a)(1), (3)), 137 ALR Fed 445. Increase, or promise of increase or withholding of increase, of wages as unfair labor practice under state labor relations acts, 34 ALR6th 327.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1987–1989 · leading case: E. Air Lines, Inc. v. Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.), 108 B.R. 901 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989).
E. Air Lines, Inc. v. Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.), 108 B.R. 901 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989). “[See, Ga.Code Ann. §§ 34-6-2 (unlawful to prevent or threaten to prevent someone from entering or leaving a place of employment); 34-6-2 (prohibiting attempts to prevent someone from engaging in his vocation by force, intimidation, violence or threats); 34-6-4 (prohibiting…”
Union Camp Corp. v. Savannah Bldg. Trades Council, 361 S.E.2d 178 (Ga. 1987). · cites it 2× “Certain authority of the courts of this state to intervene in a labor dispute is set out in OCGA §§ 34-6-2 through 34-6-7. These statutes prohibit, inter alia, the use of violence and intimidation to prevent one from engaging in employment at a place where a labor dispute…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.