Olympia Operating Co. v. Costello

• Citation: 278 Mass. 125
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Decision Date: 25 January 1932
• Parties: OLYMPIA OPERATING COMPANY v. CHARLES J. COSTELLO & others.

278 Mass. 125

OLYMPIA OPERATING COMPANY v. CHARLES J. COSTELLO & others.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

January 25, 1932

September 17, 1931.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., CROSBY SANDERSON, & FIELD, JJ.

Unlawful Interference. Labor Union. Strike.

In a suit in equity by the proprietor of a theatre to enjoin a labor union from picketing before the theatre with placards, it appeared that the picketing was done with placards containing the statement: "UNION MEN AND

WOMEN DO NOT PATRONIZE THIS THEATER THIS THEATER UNFAIR TO THE BILLPOSTERS UNION. . . . UNION BILLPOSTERS LOCKED OUT. UNION SYMPATHIZERS

STAY AWAY" that thereby the business of the plaintiff was interfered with to an appreciable extent; that the plaintiff had employed members of the union to do outside billposting, but never had employed any of them to "change the lobby," which was done by the plaintiff's own poster artist and a helper; that owing to a refusal by the plaintiff to employ members of the union to "change the lobby," the union called a strike of those employed by the plaintiff in outside posting. A decree for the plaintiff was entered and the defendants appealed. Held, that the statement in the placards, "union billposters locked out," being false, the use of such false statement was an unlawful means of conducting a strike and warranted the decree of injunction.

Whether the statement in the placards that the theatre was unfair to the billposters' union was untrue and therefore unlawful was not considered.

Section 24 of G.L.c. 149, being limited in its application to a lawful strike lawfully conducted, had no bearing in the suit above described.

BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on March 14, 1931, and described in the opinion.

The suit was referred to a master. Material facts found by the master are stated in the opinion.

The suit was heard by Whiting, J., by whose order there were entered an interlocutory decree confirming the master's report, and a final decree enjoining the defendants, "members of Local No. 15 International Association of Billposters and Billers, its and their officers, agents, servants, attorneys and employees, from placing the name of the plaintiff or the Paramount or Broadway Theaters in Springfield upon any sign, card, placard or other display so as to induce or attempt to induce persons not to patronize either of the above named theaters of the petitioner; from picketing before the theaters above named; from parading before the petitioner's premises above referred to with signs such as described in the master's report or other signs of similar purport; from interfering by word of mouth, printed articles or otherwise with the patrons and customers of the petitioner so as to induce them not to patronize the petitioner's theaters above named."

The defendants appealed from the final decree. J.E. Kerigan, for the defendants.

C.H. Beckwith, for the plaintiff.

CROSBY, J. This is a bill in equity brought by a Massachusetts corporation engaged in the business of operating theatres in several cities in this Commonwealth, including the Paramount and Broadway theatres in the city of Springfield, against the members of a voluntary association or labor union known as Local No. 15 International Association of Billposters and Billers (herein called the Local), and against other members of the Local whose names are alleged to be unknown to the plaintiff. The bill is brought to restrain the defendants from conspiring to injure the plaintiff in its business and from other acts set forth in the prayers of the bill. The case was heard by a master whose report was confirmed, and a final decree was entered restraining the defendants from picketing before the Paramount or the Broadway Theater in Springfield, and from attempting to induce persons not to patronize the theatres by signs, cards, placards or otherwise. The case is before this court upon an appeal from that decree.

The master made the following findings: The Paramount Theater has been operated by the plaintiff since it was opened in September, 1929. Members of the union were employed about a month before the opening to do the outside billposting and billing, and thereafter they were employed to do such advertising work except during the summer and fall of 1930, until December of that year.

Shortly after the opening of the theatre a discussion arose between the representatives of the plaintiff and the Local as to the right of the members so employed to "change" the lobby. The phrase "to change the lobby" means the taking down of the advertising matter in the lobby of the theatre and the setting up of new advertising matter at times when the program of the theatre is changed. In December, 1929, a member of the Local was told by the plaintiff's then district manager to refrain from changing the lobby, and was threatened by him with removal from the lobby by the police if he persisted in making such change. From the opening of the Paramount Theater on September 27, 1929, to the following December, this member was forbidden to change the lobby which he had been doing in conjunction with the plaintiff's artist.

It is further found by the master that this lobby work at the Paramount Theater was not within the scope or purpose for which this member of the union was hired, as stated to him by the plaintiff's representative at the time of such hiring, nor was he at any time requested to do this work by any authorized representative of the plaintiff. There was no evidence that he was paid for such work, as such,...