Brennan v. United Hatters of N. Am.

• Decision Date: 19 November 1906
• Citation: 73 N.J.L. 729,65 A. 165
• Parties: BRENNAN v. UNITED HATTERS OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 17, et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

65 A. 165

73 N.J.L. 729

BRENNAN

v. UNITED HATTERS OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 17, et al.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 19, 1906.

(Syllabus by the Court)

Error to Circuit Court, Essex County.

Action by Timothy Brennan against the United Hatters of North America, Local No. 17, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Riker & Riker, for plaintiffs in error. Howe & Davis, for defendant in error.

PITNEY, J. This was an action of tort, brought to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff through interference by the defendants with his employment in his trade as a hatter. Plaintiff was a member of Local Union No. 17 of the United Hatters of North America. The defendants are this local union (sued under P. L. 1885, p. 26, as a voluntary association consisting of more than 7 members) and 12 individuals, 1 of whom was the secretary of the union, and the other 11 constituted a committee thereof known as the "Vigilance Committee." The plaintiff's declaration contains three counts, of which the first indicates the ground of recovery that is established by the verdict it alleges, in substance, that plaintiff was a member of the United Hatters of North America, Local No. 17, and was employed by the firm of E. V. Connett & Co. in the trade and occupation of the manufacture of hats, in the capacity of foreman; that he was authorized under the constitution and by-laws of the United Hatters to act in such capacity, and was enjoying the benefit of a membership card issued by that association, certifying to his good standing; that the association and the individual defendants constituting its vigilance committee, in order to injure the plaintiff in his said trade and occupation, on August 6, 1902, maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause, pretending that plaintiff had violated the laws of the defendant United Hatters of North America, Local No. 17, and without serving the plaintiff with written charges of the alleged violation, and without giving him notice of the hearing of said charges, adjudged the plaintiff to be guilty thereof, and directed that a fine of $500 be levied upon him; that afterwards, on September 4, 1902, at a meeting of the defendant United Hatters of North America, Local No. 17, the decision of the defendants adjudging the plaintiff guilty as aforesaid was reversed and set aside; that by reason of the plaintiff's refusal to pay the said fine the defendants withdrew from him the benefit of his membership card, by means whereof the said Connett & Co. were compelled to and did refuse to continue the plaintiff in their employ, as they otherwise would have done, and by reason thereof the plaintiff was prevented from exercising his trade and occupation of a hat manufacturer, and from obtaining any engagement or employment therein. As to this count the defendants pleaded the general issue—not guilty. A trial being had before the judge of the Essex circuit court and a jury, there was a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the consequent judgment is now before us for review.

The assignments of error relate to certain rulings of the trial judge that are evidenced by bills of exceptions. It appears that plaintiff was a member in good standing of the United Hatters' Union and was working in Connett's factory as one of several hundred men, all of whom belonged to the same union. He was a foreman, in receipt of $18 per week as wages. By the rules of the union no man could be employed in such a shop unless his membership card or check was on deposit with the shop steward, who was an agent of the union at the factory. By the same rules members of the union were not permitted to work in the shop together with any man who was not a member of the union or not in possession of his card. The union included within its jurisdiction about 2,200 men, employed in about 15 different factories, situate in a district comprising Orange, Hackettstown, Bloomfield, Millburn, and Livingston. All the hat factories in this district were under the jurisdiction of the same union. By an agreement made between the union and the manufacturers, every man employed in any of these factories must have a membership card on deposit with the shop steward. It appears that by the rules of the union the association has power to fine and reprimand or otherwise punish any member violating the laws of the association or the rules of trade. The vigilance committee has power to transact any business pertaining to the welfare of the trade in the time intervening between the regular meetings of the union. By the rule relating to "Trial and Appeal," it is provided as follows: "Any member of this association shall be entitled to due notice and a fair trial upon being accused of any violation of its laws or the rules of trade, but no member shall be put on trial unless charges are submitted in writing by a member of the association." It appears that on August 5, 1902, a meeting of the vigilance committee was held at the instance of two members of the association, named Sereno and Alvino, to investigate a complaint made by them on the authority of Foreman Brennan (the plaintiff herein) against one Trancone, to the effect that Trancone had accused them (Sereno and Alvino) of lying in wait around Brennan's house for the purpose of doing him some injury. Brennan was called before the meeting as a witness. Trancone appears to have been present as the party accused. Each was examined by the committee in the absence of the other. It appears from the minutes that in the course of the investigation Trancone stated to the committee (in Brennan's absence) that he himself had on several occasions paid Brennan small sums of money "to get good work," and that one Panegraso had given money to Brennan for the same purpose. Trancone having retired from the presence of the committee, Brennan was recalled, and the statement made by Trancone before the committee was read to him. Brennan denied it. The committee then called Trancone before Brennan to verify his statement. Trancone declared that his statement was true in every particular, and Brennan again denied the charge. Subsequently, at the same meeting, Panegraso came before the committee under escort of Brennan "as a witness to prove that Trancone lied." Trancone was recalled and reaffirmed his accusation in the presence of Brennan, Panegraso, and the committee. Thereupon all parties were notified to appear before the committee on the following afternoon (August 6th). Upon that date another meeting of the vigilance committee was held, concerning which the minutes disclose only the following: "Timothy Brennan's case was then taken up, and Michael Panegraso was called before the committee to answer the charge that he had ever given money to Brennan. He denied that he had ever given money to Brennan. Mr. Brennan was called and admitted having met Panegraso in Bloomfield. Motion that Michael Panegraso and Benedetto Trancone be fined the sum of $500 each, $250 down and $5 per week, carried. Motion that Mr. Brennan be fined the sum of $500, $250 down and and $1 per week, and to give up his place as foreman for the space of one year in Connett's hat factory, carried unanimously." This action of the vigilance committee was reported to a meeting of the association held on the following day (August 7th), and a motion was carried that the report be adopted as read. It should be observed that this ratification by the association of the action of its committee is not mentioned in the plaintiff's declaration herein. In order to sustain the judgment under review the declaration will be treated as amended, if necessary, in this regard. On August 15th the secretary of the union (who is one of the defendants herein) went to Connett's hat factory, where Brennan was working, explained to him the action taken by the vigilance committee and by the meeting of the association, and demanded payment of the $250. Brennan refused to pay it, and the secretary thereupon went to the shop steward and took Brennan's check from the box. It is inferable from the evidence that this was done by the secretary in the regular course of his duty, and that in doing it he acted as agent for the association. Afterwards, and on the same day, Brennan's counsel wrote to the union protesting against the action taken, on the ground that no charges had been preferred nor any notice of a trial or hearing given to him as required by the laws of the association. Subsequently, and under date of August 17th, a charge was preferred in writing by Trancone, and Brennan was notified of a hearing before the vigilance committee to be held on the 18th. He declined to attend, on the ground that he could not appear legally until his card was returned to him, and on the further ground that members of the vigilance committee had made public statements showing that they were prejudiced against him. At a meeting of the association held on September 4th a motion that Brennan be exonerated was carried by a two-thirds vote. Shortly thereafter his card was returned to him and he went back to work in the Connett factory. On August 15th, a few minutes after the secretary of the union took up Brennan's membership card, he was discharged by the head foreman on the ground that Brennan no longer had his check in the box. Upon being exonerated by the union, Brennan informed the head foreman of the fact and was Immediately reemployed.

The trial Judge, having denied a motion for nonsuit made at the close of the plaintiffs case, and a motion for direction of a verdict in defendant's favor made at the close of the whole case, submitted the issue to the jury, with instructions to the effect that if they found the plaintiff had sustained damage from the acts of the defendants in the premises, and if the vigilance committee proceeded against the plaintiff without charges submitted in writing, without notice to the plaintiff, or...