No person shall singly or in concert with others interfere or attempt to interfere with another in the exercise of his right to work or to enter upon the performance of any lawful vocation by the use of force, threats of violence or intimidation, or by the use of insulting or threatening language directed toward such person, to induce or attempt to induce him to quit his employment or refrain from seeking employment.
No person shall engage in picketing by force or violence, or picket alone or in concert with others in such manner as to obstruct or interfere with free ingress or egress to and from any premises, or obstruct or interfere with free use of public streets, sidewalks or other public ways.
Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished accordingly.
Notwithstanding the punishments herein provided any court of general equity jurisdiction may enjoin picketing prohibited by this section, and in addition thereto, may enjoin any picketing or interference with lawful picketing when necessary to prevent disorder, restrain coercion, protect life or property, or promote the general welfare.
Code 1950, § 40-64; 1952, c. 674; 1970, c. 321; 1974, c. 254.
Notes of Decisions
Crawford v. United Steelworkers, Afl-cio, 335 S.E.2d 828 (Va. 1985).
· cites it 16× “01-45; that there was no violation of Code §§ 40.1-53, 40.1-66, or 40.1-67, which concern picketing and right to work; that there was no intentional infliction of emotional distress; that there was no assault and battery; and that certain specified plaintiffs were entitled to…”
Ramar Coal Co. v. Int'l Union, United Mine Workers, 814 F. Supp. 502 (W.D. Va. 1993).
· cites it 9× “VaCode § 40.1-53 (Michie 1990). The circuit court enjoined District 28 and UMWA, ultimately held them in contempt, and fined them because the court found “clear and convincing evidence [of] numerous and repeated violations” of its injunctions.”
United Steelworkers of Am., Etc. v. Dalton, 544 F. Supp. 291 (E.D. Va. 1982).
· cites it 3× “In Steelworkers I, the plaintiffs therein challenged the constitutionality of three Virginia statutes: §§ 40.1-53, 18.2-406 and 18.2-407 of the Virginia Code.”
Kaufhold v. Bright, 835 F. Supp. 294 (W.D. Va. 1993).
· cites it 4× “In support of his assertion, he points to Virginia’s picketing and right to work statute, Va.Code Ann. § 40.1-53 (Michie 1990). That statute is inapposite on several levels of application.”
Rawlings v. Rawlings, 460 S.E.2d 581 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “See Code §§ 40.1-53, -58. Moreover, we find that the preemption doctrine giving supremacy to the NLRA does not usurp the power of a state to require a union member to fulfill legal obligations unrelated to his or her union’s collective bargaining activities.”
Clark v. Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am., 722 F. Supp. 250 (W.D. Va. 1989).
“The courts in Dalton and Norton Coal rejected arguments that federal labor law preempted Virginia’s right-to-work statute, § 40.1-53. Consequently, on the one hand, the state court order in this case seeks to implement the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to protect its…”
Clegg v. Local 149 U.A.W., 47 Va. Cir. 276 (Winchester Cir. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 6× “The acts of force and violence which are alleged in the plaintiffs’ original motions for judgment to have occurred in Abex’s plant are file specific type of conduct, which if proven would violate Virginia Code §40.”
Clegg v. Local 149 U.A.W., 46 Va. Cir. 192 (Winchester Cir. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 3× “As an ¿side, it is noted that most of the acts alleged are conduct specifically directed at the plaintiff, who is a fellow employee, and which if proven would violate Virginia Code § 40.1-53, which provides: *195 No person shall singly or in concert with others interfere or…”
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.