Cohen v. Detroit Joint Bd. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 14

• Decision Date: 18 May 1950
• Docket Number: No. 14,14
• Citation: 327 Mich. 606,42 N.W.2d 830
• Parties: COHEN v. DETROIT JOINT BOARD AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 830

42 N.W.2d 830

327 Mich. 606

COHEN v. DETROIT JOINT BOARD AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA

No. 14.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 18, 1950.

Gabriel Glantz, Detroit, attorney for plaintiff and appellant.

Rothe & Marston, Detroit, attorneys for defendant appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

NORTH, Justice.

Plaintiff, Herman Cohen, d/b/a Lawndale Quality Cleaners, owns and operates a dry cleaning plant in the city of Detroit. He has six employees. Under the circumstances hereinafter noted, defendant, at the time of filing the bill of complaint and for some time prior thereto, had been maintaining a picket line in front of plaintiff's place of business. Plaintiff, alleging that the picketing was unlawful, sought by his suit to have the picketing restrained. On the day the bill of complaint was filed the circuit judge issued an order to show cause 'why an injunction should not issue from this court restraining defendant, its agents and employees, from picketing plaintiff's place of business * * * until the conclusion of this suit.' Upon hearing on the order to show cause, the circuit judge denied plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction. Thereupon plaintiff sought and obtained in this Court leave to appeal and a temporary injunction restraining the picketing until the further order of this Court.

We hear the case de novo and as a court of equity. The issue presented by this appeal is whether a temporary injunction restraining the picketing of plaintiff's place of business by defendant pending the hearing and determination of plaintiff's suit should not have been issued.

As alleged in plaintiff's bill of complaint, the pertinent facts are that about a month before the bill was filed two of defendant's agents 'went to plaintiff's place of business and asked him to sign a contract with the union with the following provisions: that he would be compelled to recognize the defendant as 'exclusive collective bargaining representatives for all' his 'inside workers,' drivers and all other employees; that he would be compelled to deduct the union dues from the employees' wages and give said funds to defendant; that he would be compelled to contribute 2% of the gross wages paid to his employees to a so-called sick and accident fund.' It is further alleged in the bill of complaint that plaintiff advised defendant's agents 'that if his employees acquiesed in the above demands and authorized him to do so, he would comply.' Also

'That defendant's agents advised plaintiff that they were in no way concerned with employees' wishes, that they, in fact, knew that in the event of an election they could not secure a majority of the employees' votes, that they would not submit to an election, and that if plaintiff would not sign said contract, they would post pickets in front of his place of business and 'kill his retail trade."

Plaintiff further alleges that defendant's agents were permitted to talk with plaintiff's employees, or some of them; that they refused to join the union, and thereupon plaintiff refused to sign the contract. Upon such refusal defendant caused four pickets to be placed in front of plaintiff's premises with signs bearing inscriptions: 'This is a non-union shop. Do not patronize. Amalgamated Clothing Workers CIO.' Plaintiff also alleges that the pickets engaged in 'talking to and molesting the customers, advising them that their clothing would not be returned, blocking the doorways and generally conducting themselves in a loud and boisterous manner'; that defendant's agents informed plaintiff many times that they would continue the picketing until he joined the union, 'and that they will ruin his business by keeping retail customers from his place of business unless he signs said contract.'

In an amendment to his bill of complaint, plaintiff charges that defendant's conduct, through its agents, is in violation of C.L.1948, § 423.17, as amended by P.A.1949, No. 230, § 17, Stat.Ann.1949 Cum.Supp. § 17.454(18), which reads as follows:

'It shall be unlawful (1) for any employee or other person by force or unlawful threats to force, or attempt to force any person to become or remain a...