Cumberland Glass Mpg. Co. v. Glass Bottle Blowers' Ass'n of United States and Canada

• Decision Date: 14 December 1899
• Parties: CUMBERLAND GLASS MPG. CO. v. GLASS BOTTLE BLOWERS' ASS'N OF UNITED STATES AND CANADA et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

46 A. 208

59 N.J.E. 49

CUMBERLAND GLASS MPG. CO.

v. GLASS BOTTLE BLOWERS' ASS'N OF UNITED STATES AND CANADA et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Dec. 14, 1899.

Bill by the Cumberland Glass Manufacturing Company against the Glass Bottle Blowers' Association of the United States and Canada, Dennis A. Hayes, and others to enjoin defendants from interfering with workmen engaged by complainant. Injunction granted.

The bill of the complainant sets out that it is a manufacturer of both window glass and hollow ware; that on March 16, 1899, it received a letter from Dennis A. Hayes, president of the Glass Bottle Blowers' Association of the United States and Canada, stating that the nonunion glass blowers of South Jersey had organized and agreed that they should ask their employers to concede them such wages and privileges as had been agreed upon between the union manufacturers and their employes. The letter requested a meeting to discuss this matter. Those manufacturers who had received copies of this letter .net, and appointed a committee to confer with Mr. Hayes. This committee, being unable to come to an agreement with Hayes, suggested the appointment of an arbitration committee, to which suggestion Mr. Hayes refused to accede, and declined to consider any proposition which did not include an increase of wages and a reduction in the number of future apprentices, and the subjection of all manufacturers to the domination of the defendant association. They thus failed to agree, and on April 8, 1899, all the journeymen blowers and finishers, with two exceptions in the hollow ware department of complainant's works, left their work while the molten glass was in the furnace and tanks, and this branch of work has since been idle. The bill further states that Hayes lives in Philadelphia, but came to Bridgeton, and directed the strike, either personally or through orders issued by him to William M. Doughty, Charles Doughty, and George W. Branin, none of whom are residents of Bridgeton, but who, since the strike, have been continuously in the said city, conducting it; that Mr. Hayes, William Lanning, secretary, Conrad Auth, its treasurer, and William Doughty and George W. Branin, members of the executive committee of the Glass Bottle Blowers' Association, have furnished sums of money to prevent the workers from returning to their work; that two branches of the said association, namely, No. 8 and No. 19, have been organized in Bridgeton, to assist in disbursing said sums; that certain persons, acting by advice of the said association, have congregated in large numbers, some armed with clubs, about the approaches to complainant's factory, and by threats and force have coerced and intimidated such workmen as have offered their services to complainant; that they not only guarded such approaches, hut guarded all railroad stations, to prevent, by violence, all who offered their services to complainant; that complainant has been compelled to lodge 30 of its employes within its works, to protect them from injury, and that the strikers have attacked and maltreated those about to enter complainant's works. The answer admits the writing of the letter by Hayes, but states that the nonunion workmen requested him to do so. It denies that the proposition for an arbitration committee was actually made by the committee of manufacturers, but states that Hayes agreed to a meeting of the counsel of the manufacturers and of the association, if the former would agree to continue their artisans at work uninterruptedly, and would agree to abide by the terms for the next fire, as they should be fixed at the ensuing July conference between the manufacturers' association and the defending Glass Bottle Blowers' Association, and that this proposition was repudiated by the complainant; that the workmen voluntarily left work upon this refusal, and joined the Glass Bottle Blowers' Association. The answer admits that workmen who ceased labor for this reason are entitled to a stated sum per week. It admits the organization of branches No. 8 and No. 19, at the request of the workmen. It admits that they, without violence, have sought to persuade each artisan to join their association, hut denies the commission of any act of violence. The affidavits attached to complainant's bill are, in substance, to the following effect: That from the inception of the strike the street in front of the entrance of the works of complainant has been constantly occupied by bands of strikers, some armed with clubs, and that they used indecent and threatening language to the workmen of complainant; and that they interposed physically between the entrance and any one wishing to enter, or who was suspected to be a prospective employe; that they threw bricks and stones against the house and fence of the company, and into the house of one who lodged the workmen of the company; that employes and those suspected of seeking work were held up, and insulted, and threatened on the" street and in the city cars; that the platforms of the railroad stations on each arrival of a train were crowded with strikers, and workmen were sought out, and physically pushed into the headquarters of the strikers, where they were half persuaded and half coerced into abandoning their intention of working in complainant's factory; that incoming trains with workmen on board were bombarded with stones, and the persons in charge of these workmen were struck, and seriously injured. The manner in which the several defendants named in the bill were connected with the transactions thus detailed will appear by the further proofs contained in the affidavit of the complainant; and how far the force of the testimony of the complainant's witnesses is modified by the affidavits of the defendants will appear by a statement of the substance of the latter affidavits attached to the answer.

Walter H. Bacon, for complainant. John W. Westcott and John J. Crandall, for defendants.

REED, V. C.(after stating the facts). Before drawing my conclusions as to the facts proved by these affidavits, I will state the general doctrine, as I understand it, which controls the liability of the defendants to an injunction. Every employer has the right to engage, or refuse to engage, whomsoever he chooses, just as every workman has the right to enter or refuse to enter the service of any employer, as he may choose. Apart from obligations arising from special contract for employment, or for services, for a specified period of time, every employer has the right to discharge a workman, and every workman' has the privilege of leaving the service of his employer, at his pleasure. The freedom of the individual workman to seek employment, and of the individual master to give or refuse employment, belongs to every citizen. Formerly a concerted act, by which a number of workmen combined to leave a master's employment simultaneously, or to persuade other workmen to leave his employment together, for the purpose of injuring his business, or of compelling him to concede increased wages, or to hire or discharge particular workmen, was an indictable conspiracy. It was, however, held, in the case of Mayer v. Association, 47 N. J. Eq. 519, 20 Atl. 492, that since the passage of the act of 1883 (page 36) a combination which before that time would have been held to be a conspiracy became by the force of this statute a lawful combination. This act has not been repealed. By its terms it is lawful for workmen to combine to persuade, by peaceable means, any person or persons to enter into any combination for the leaving or entering into the employment of any person or persons or corporation. The purpose of the act was undoubtedly to legalize strikes; i. e. the organization of concerted simultaneous cessation of work by bodies of workmen. The words employed by the statute cover a combination for the purpose of persuading others to combine for the purpose of entering or leaving an employment. The words would seem to intend a legalization of a combination to induce others to join in a strike, and are,...