179.083 JURISDICTIONAL CONTROVERSIES.
Whenever two or more labor organizations adversely claim for themselves or their members
jurisdiction over certain classifications of work to be done for any employer or in any industry,
or over the persons engaged in or performing such work and such jurisdictional interference or
dispute is made the ground for picketing an employer or declaring a strike or boycott against the
employer, the commissioner may appoint a labor referee to hear and determine the jurisdictional
controversy. If the labor organizations involved in the controversy have an agreement between
themselves defining their respective jurisdictions, or if they are affiliated with the same labor
federation or organization which has by the charters granted to the contending organizations
limited their jurisdiction, the labor referee shall determine the controversy in accordance with
the proper construction of the agreement or of the provisions of the charters of the contending
organizations. If there is no agreement or charter which governs the controversy, the labor referee
shall make such decision as, in consideration of past history of the organization, harmonious
operation of the industry, and most effective representation for collective bargaining, will best
promote industrial peace. If the labor organizations involved in the controversy so desire, they
may submit the controversy to a tribunal of the federation or labor organization which has granted
their charters or to arbitration before a tribunal selected by themselves, provided the controversy is
so submitted prior to the appointment by the governor of a labor referee to act in the controversy.
After the appointment of the labor referee by the governor, or the submission of the controversy
to another tribunal as herein provided, it shall be unlawful for any person or labor organization
to call or conduct a strike or boycott against the employer or industry or to picket any place of
business of the employer or in the industry on account of such jurisdictional controversy.
History: 1943 c 624 s 6; 1969 c 1129 art 2 s 8; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 45 s 5; 1987 c 186 s 15