18 N.E.2d 258 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1938), 40195, Swing v. American Federation of Labor

Docket Nº:Gen. No. 40195.
Citation:18 N.E.2d 258, 298 Ill.App. 63
Party Name:SWING ET AL. v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR ET AL.
Case Date:December 21, 1938
Court:Court of Appeals of Illinois

Page 258

18 N.E.2d 258 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1938)

298 Ill.App. 63

SWING ET AL.

v.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR ET AL.

Gen. No. 40195.

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, First Division.

December 21, 1938

Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1939.

[298 Ill.App. 64] Samuel A. Rinella and Myer N. Rosengard, both of Chicago (Joseph Barbera and Seymour Rady, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.

Stanton & Stanton, of Chicago (Bailey Stanton, S. J. Stanton, and Wm. McK. Gleeson, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.

McSURELY, Presiding Justice.

By this appeal plaintiffs seek the reversal of an order dissolving a preliminary injunction, assessing damages and dismissing their complaint.

Pursuant to the prayer of the complaint a temporary injunction was issued restraining the defendants from picketing in front of Swing's place of business; subsequently answers were filed by defendants and a motion made to dissolve the temporary injunction and to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, which motions were allowed. Defendants' brief seems to assume that the court considered both the complaint and the answers filed in passing upon the motions, but the orders show definitely that the complaint was dismissed for want of equity on its face, so that in considering the question [298 Ill.App. 65] before us we

Page 259

have only to consider whether the complaint sets up a cause of action.

The complaint is a joint pleading filed by the employer, Swing, and all of his employees; in it Swing asserts that he is engaged in the beauty parlor business in Chicago and his co-plaintiffs are all his employees; none of the members of the defendant unions are employees, or former or expectant employees of Swing; the Cosmetologists Union, defendant, is a union Local recently organized for the purpose of taking into the union employees of Chicago beauty shop operators. Plaintiff Swing asserts he has spent a large sum of money in equipment and furnishings in his place of business and in advertising, and has built up a large clientele.

April 30, 1937, four persons purporting to be officials and business agents of Local No. 548-D of the Hairdressers and Cosmetologists Union, called upon Swing and demanded that he order his employees to join their union; the complaint alleges he told them he had no objection to his employees joining the union if they wished to do so, and had no objection to these agents discussing the matter with his employees; that he permitted them at various times to speak to his employees and never at any time, by any means, attempted to influence his employees in the matter; that he was perfectly willing that the employees should decide for themselves.

That the employees, of their own free will and without any suggestions on his part, have refused to join this union for the reason that several of them had previously on several occasions joined other unions, which unions had lasted for but a short time and were never heard of thereafter, and they believed that this experience would be repeated if they joined this particular new union; that the employees saw no advantage in joining and believed it was merely a front for its organizers for the purpose of permitting them to [298 Ill.App. 66] collect large sums of money, not to be used for the benefit of the members but for the personal use of the organizers. Employer Swing asserts that he has had no disputes or controversies with his employees; that they are satisfied with the wages he is paying them and with their working hours and conditions; that there has never been any lockout on his part or any strike by his employees.

That notwithstanding these conditions defendants caused his place of business to be picketed by several persons; none of the pickets were employees and all of them were strangers to him and never employed by him; that beginning April 30, 1937, there were one and very often two male and female pickets walking up and down and close to the entrance to his place of business, carrying large signs with the words in large letters, "This Beauty Shop is Unfair to Organized Labor, Hairdressers and Cosmetologists Union Local 548-D, American Federation of Labor and Chicago Federation of Labor;" that the picketing continued during the entire day and part of the evening when the place was open for business. The complaint charges that the wording and lettering on the signs are untrue and designedly false and malicious; that the pickets interfered with the customers entering and coming from the place of business; that on the evening of May 15, 1937, one of his women customers, who had had some beauty work done in his shop and was just leaving, was accosted by one of the pickets then walking in front of the shop, who grabbed her by the arm and in a threatening manner said to her, "You better not go in there again; it's a scab shop;" that on the same day another customer, as she was leaving the premises, was accosted by two men who had been loitering about the premises for some time, and who in a threatening and menacing voice said to her, "You ought to be shot for going into that scab shop."

[298 Ill.App. 67] That the untruthful statements on the signs misled the public and patrons into believing there was a strike in the shop; that this is untrue and unfair to the employees, resulting in loss of patronage; that successful attempts were made by the defendants to shut off the hot water and laundry supply of plaintiffs by reason of some connection with the engineer of the building and the drivers of laundry trucks.

The complaint charges that the pickets were all strangers to the plaintiff employer and that defendants were conspiring to ruin plaintiffs' business, and that the entire campaign was a malevolent one, and if permitted to continue would bring about the destruction of plaintiff's business.

The question presented for determination is whether a labor union, in which none of its members are present, past or expectant employees of an employer, has a right to picket his place of business for the purpose of compelling the employees,

Page 260

who do not wish to join a union, to do so?

In the past the Illinois courts were committed to the proposition that peaceful picketing and peaceful persuasion were unlawful. Philip Henrici Co. v. Alexander, 198 Ill.App. 568; O'Brien v. People, 216 Ill. 354, 75 N.E. 108, 108...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
9 practice notes
  • 112 P.2d 850 (Wash. 1941), 28197, Sears v. International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 524
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court of Washington
    • 25 Abril 1941
    ...opposite is the recent case of American Federation of Labor v. Swing, 61 S.Ct. 568, 85 L.Ed.--(Swing v. American Federation of Labor, 298 Ill.App. 63, 18 N.E.2d 258; Id. 372 Ill. 91, 22 N.E.2d 857), in which the United States Supreme Court held that the right of labor unions Page 856 to con......
  • 195 So. 791 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1940), 6148, Johnson v. Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Union, Local No. 854
    • United States
    • Louisiana Court of Appeals of Louisiana
    • 4 Abril 1940
    ...together with evidence of blockading of public streets. " In the case of Swing et al. v. American Federation of Labor et al., 298 Ill.App. 63, 18 N.E.2d 258, the court granted an injunction and was careful to point out that their law was still the same as the Clayton Act and that the S......
  • 146 F.2d 171 (7th Cir. 1944), 8560, Montgomery Ward & Co. v. McGraw-Hill Pub. Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    • 22 Diciembre 1944
    ...was a suit to enjoin peaceful picketers from carrying signs stating that the plaintiff was unfair to labor. The injunction was granted, 298 Ill.App. 63, 18 N.E.2d 258, and the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the decision, but the Supreme Court of the United States reversed, 312 U.S. 321,......
  • 312 U.S. 321 (1941), 56, American Federation of Labor v. Swing
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Supreme Court
    • 10 Febrero 1941
    ...372 Ill. 91, 22 N.E.2d 857, reversed. Certiorari, 310 U.S. 620, to review the affirmance of a decree of the Appellate Court of Illinois, 298 Ill.App. 63, 18 N.E.2d 258, which directed an injunction against picketing of a beauty shop by a labor union. The plaintiffs were the proprietor Swing......
  • Free signup to view additional results
9 cases
  • 112 P.2d 850 (Wash. 1941), 28197, Sears v. International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 524
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court of Washington
    • 25 Abril 1941
    ...opposite is the recent case of American Federation of Labor v. Swing, 61 S.Ct. 568, 85 L.Ed.--(Swing v. American Federation of Labor, 298 Ill.App. 63, 18 N.E.2d 258; Id. 372 Ill. 91, 22 N.E.2d 857), in which the United States Supreme Court held that the right of labor unions Page 856 to con......
  • 195 So. 791 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1940), 6148, Johnson v. Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Union, Local No. 854
    • United States
    • Louisiana Court of Appeals of Louisiana
    • 4 Abril 1940
    ...together with evidence of blockading of public streets. " In the case of Swing et al. v. American Federation of Labor et al., 298 Ill.App. 63, 18 N.E.2d 258, the court granted an injunction and was careful to point out that their law was still the same as the Clayton Act and that the S......
  • 146 F.2d 171 (7th Cir. 1944), 8560, Montgomery Ward & Co. v. McGraw-Hill Pub. Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    • 22 Diciembre 1944
    ...was a suit to enjoin peaceful picketers from carrying signs stating that the plaintiff was unfair to labor. The injunction was granted, 298 Ill.App. 63, 18 N.E.2d 258, and the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the decision, but the Supreme Court of the United States reversed, 312 U.S. 321,......
  • 312 U.S. 321 (1941), 56, American Federation of Labor v. Swing
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Supreme Court
    • 10 Febrero 1941
    ...372 Ill. 91, 22 N.E.2d 857, reversed. Certiorari, 310 U.S. 620, to review the affirmance of a decree of the Appellate Court of Illinois, 298 Ill.App. 63, 18 N.E.2d 258, which directed an injunction against picketing of a beauty shop by a labor union. The plaintiffs were the proprietor Swing......
  • Free signup to view additional results