295.180. 1. Should either the utility or its employeesrefuse to accept and abide by the recommendations made pursuantto the provisions of this chapter and as a result thereof theeffective operation of a public utility be threatened orinterrupted, or should either party in a labor dispute between autility and its employees, after having given sixty days' noticethereof, or failing to give such notice, engage in any strike,work stoppage or lockout which, in the opinion of the governor,will result in the failure to continue the operation of thepublic utility, and threatens the public interest, health andwelfare, or in the event that neither side has given notice tothe other of an intention to seek a change in working conditions,and there occurs a lockout, strike or work stoppage which, in theopinion of the governor, threatens to impair the operation of theutility so as to interfere with the public interest, health andwelfare, then and in that case he is authorized to take immediatepossession of the plant, equipment or facility for the use andoperation by the state of Missouri in the public interest.
2. Such power and authority may be exercised by the governorthrough such department or agency of the government as he maydesignate and may be exercised after his investigation andproclamation that there is a threatened or actual interruption ofthe operation of such public utility as the result of a labordispute, a threatened or actual strike, a lockout or other labordisturbance, and that the public interest, health and welfare arejeopardized, and that the exercise of such authority is necessaryto insure the operation of such public utility; provided, thatwhenever such public utility, its plant, equipment or facilityhas been or is thereafter so taken by reason of a strike,lockout, threatened strike, threatened lockout, work stoppage orslowdown, or other cause, such utility, plant, equipment orfacility shall be returned to the owners thereof as soon aspracticable after the settlement of said labor dispute, and itshall thereupon be the duty of such utility to continue theoperation of the plant facility, or equipment in accordance withits franchise and certificate of public convenience andnecessity.
(L. 1947 V. I p. 358 § 19)
(1955) Where agent appointed by and under direction of proclamation of governor acting under this section notified utility company that he was taking over and that he desired the present management to continue, the employees of the utility did not become employees of the state and state did not incur liability to persons injured as a result of the utility's operations during its seizure. Utility in such case was the employer and as such was responsible for the tortious acts of its employees. Rider v. Julian (Mo.), 282 S.W.2d 484.
(1962) King-Thompson Act contemplates seizure and injunctive relief only in and during emergency situations where health, safety and welfare of public are threatened. Act upheld against charges that it violated provisions of United States Constitution prohibiting involuntary servitude and providing for free speech and due process, and against charge that it conflicted with National Labor Relations Act. State v. Division 1287 of Amal. Ass'n of St. El. Ry. & Motor Coach Employees (Mo.), 361 S.W.2d 33.
(1963) King-Thompson provisions empowering Governor to seize and operate utility is in direct conflict with federal legislation which guarantees the right to strike, and cannot stand under the supremacy clause of the constitution. Division 1287, Amal. Ass'n of S., E.R. & M.C.E. v. State of Missouri, 83 S.Ct. 1657.
(1963) Since this statute has been held unconstitutional by United States Supreme Court, injunction suit to restrain chairman of Missouri board of mediation from returning plants and equipment of Kansas City Transit, Inc., to owner and insistence upon continuation of seizure were without any basis in law. State ex rel. Rogers v. Kirtley (Mo.), 372 S.W.2d 86.
295.180. 1. Should either the utility or its employeesrefuse to accept and abide by the recommendations made pursuantto the provisions of this chapter and as a result thereof theeffective operation of a public utility be threatened orinterrupted, or should either party in a labor dispute between autility and its employees, after having given sixty days' noticethereof, or failing to give such notice, engage in any strike,work stoppage or lockout which, in the opinion of the governor,will result in the failure to continue the operation of thepublic utility, and threatens the public interest, health andwelfare, or in the event that neither side has given notice tothe other of an intention to seek a change in working conditions,and there occurs a lockout, strike or work stoppage which, in theopinion of the governor, threatens to impair the operation of theutility so as to interfere with the public interest, health andwelfare, then and in that case he is authorized to take immediatepossession of the plant, equipment or facility for the use andoperation by the state of Missouri in the public interest.
2. Such power and authority may be exercised by the governorthrough such department or agency of the government as he maydesignate and may be exercised after his investigation andproclamation that there is a threatened or actual interruption ofthe operation of such public utility as the result of a labordispute, a threatened or actual strike, a lockout or other labordisturbance, and that the public interest, health and welfare arejeopardized, and that the exercise of such authority is necessaryto insure the operation of such public utility; provided, thatwhenever such public utility, its plant, equipment or facilityhas been or is thereafter so taken by reason of a strike,lockout, threatened strike, threatened lockout, work stoppage orslowdown, or other cause, such utility, plant, equipment orfacility shall be returned to the owners thereof as soon aspracticable after the settlement of said labor dispute, and itshall thereupon be the duty of such utility to continue theoperation of the plant facility, or equipment in accordance withits franchise and certificate of public convenience andnecessity.
(L. 1947 V. I p. 358 § 19)
(1955) Where agent appointed by and under direction of proclamation of governor acting under this section notified utility company that he was taking over and that he desired the present management to continue, the employees of the utility did not become employees of the state and state did not incur liability to persons injured as a result of the utility's operations during its seizure. Utility in such case was the employer and as such was responsible for the tortious acts of its employees. Rider v. Julian (Mo.), 282 S.W.2d 484.
(1962) King-Thompson Act contemplates seizure and injunctive relief only in and during emergency situations where health, safety and welfare of public are threatened. Act upheld against charges that it violated provisions of United States Constitution prohibiting involuntary servitude and providing for free speech and due process, and against charge that it conflicted with National Labor Relations Act. State v. Division 1287 of Amal. Ass'n of St. El. Ry. & Motor Coach Employees (Mo.), 361 S.W.2d 33.
(1963) King-Thompson provisions empowering Governor to seize and operate utility is in direct conflict with federal legislation which guarantees the right to strike, and cannot stand under the supremacy clause of the constitution. Division 1287, Amal. Ass'n of S., E.R. & M.C.E. v. State of Missouri, 83 S.Ct. 1657.
(1963) Since this statute has been held unconstitutional by United States Supreme Court, injunction suit to restrain chairman of Missouri board of mediation from returning plants and equipment of Kansas City Transit, Inc., to owner and insistence upon continuation of seizure were without any basis in law. State ex rel. Rogers v. Kirtley (Mo.), 372 S.W.2d 86.
295.180. 1. Should either the utility or its employeesrefuse to accept and abide by the recommendations made pursuantto the provisions of this chapter and as a result thereof theeffective operation of a public utility be threatened orinterrupted, or should either party in a labor dispute between autility and its employees, after having given sixty days' noticethereof, or failing to give such notice, engage in any strike,work stoppage or lockout which, in the opinion of the governor,will result in the failure to continue the operation of thepublic utility, and threatens the public interest, health andwelfare, or in the event that neither side has given notice tothe other of an intention to seek a change in working conditions,and there occurs a lockout, strike or work stoppage which, in theopinion of the governor, threatens to impair the operation of theutility so as to interfere with the public interest, health andwelfare, then and in that case he is authorized to take immediatepossession of the plant, equipment or facility for the use andoperation by the state of Missouri in the public interest.
2. Such power and authority may be exercised by the governorthrough such department or agency of the government as he maydesignate and may be exercised after his investigation andproclamation that there is a threatened or actual interruption ofthe operation of such public utility as the result of a labordispute, a threatened or actual strike, a lockout or other labordisturbance, and that the public interest, health and welfare arejeopardized, and that the exercise of such authority is necessaryto insure the operation of such public utility; provided, thatwhenever such public utility, its plant, equipment or facilityhas been or is thereafter so taken by reason of a strike,lockout, threatened strike, threatened lockout, work stoppage orslowdown, or other cause, such utility, plant, equipment orfacility shall be returned to the owners thereof as soon aspracticable after the settlement of said labor dispute, and itshall thereupon be the duty of such utility to continue theoperation of the plant facility, or equipment in accordance withits franchise and certificate of public convenience andnecessity.
(L. 1947 V. I p. 358 § 19)
(1955) Where agent appointed by and under direction of proclamation of governor acting under this section notified utility company that he was taking over and that he desired the present management to continue, the employees of the utility did not become employees of the state and state did not incur liability to persons injured as a result of the utility's operations during its seizure. Utility in such case was the employer and as such was responsible for the tortious acts of its employees. Rider v. Julian (Mo.), 282 S.W.2d 484.
(1962) King-Thompson Act contemplates seizure and injunctive relief only in and during emergency situations where health, safety and welfare of public are threatened. Act upheld against charges that it violated provisions of United States Constitution prohibiting involuntary servitude and providing for free speech and due process, and against charge that it conflicted with National Labor Relations Act. State v. Division 1287 of Amal. Ass'n of St. El. Ry. & Motor Coach Employees (Mo.), 361 S.W.2d 33.
(1963) King-Thompson provisions empowering Governor to seize and operate utility is in direct conflict with federal legislation which guarantees the right to strike, and cannot stand under the supremacy clause of the constitution. Division 1287, Amal. Ass'n of S., E.R. & M.C.E. v. State of Missouri, 83 S.Ct. 1657.
(1963) Since this statute has been held unconstitutional by United States Supreme Court, injunction suit to restrain chairman of Missouri board of mediation from returning plants and equipment of Kansas City Transit, Inc., to owner and insistence upon continuation of seizure were without any basis in law. State ex rel. Rogers v. Kirtley (Mo.), 372 S.W.2d 86.
