Evening Times Printing & Publ'g Co. v. Am. Newspaper Guild

• Decision Date: 01 December 1937
• Citation: 195 A. 378,122 N.J.Eq. 545
• Parties: EVENING TIMES PRINTING & PUBLISHING CO. v. AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

195 A. 378

122 N.J.Eq. 545

EVENING TIMES PRINTING & PUBLISHING CO.

v. AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Dec. 1, 1937.

Suit by the Evening Times Printing & Publishing Company against the American Newspaper Guild and others, wherein petition was filed for order to show cause why Alexander Varady and "Al's Market" should not be joined as parties complainant and why additional restraint should not be granted.

Decree in accordance with opinion.

Alfred Brenner, of Bayonne, for complainant. Abraham J. Isserman, of Newark, for defendants.

EGAN, Vice Chancellor.

The petition herein seeks to join Alexander Varady and "Al's Market" as parties complainant. It also prays for an order restraining the defendants "from picketing any home, residence, building, store, factory, industry or any other places with the exception of the premises of the complainant at 579 Avenue C, Bayonne, New Jersey, where picketing may be conducted as prescribed in the order of this court made on November 22nd, 1937." Counsel for the complainant, who is also counsel for the petitioners, yesterday presented this petition and then asked for the restraint prayed for therein. I refused to give him any order until he first gave notice of this application to the defendants' counsel. It is conceded that such notice was given. All the parties to the suit appeared by counsel who have just concluded their arguments.

The petition alleges, and the affidavits attached to it say, that the place of business of the petitioners has been picketed by the defendants, or by some of them. The alleged reason for the picketing is that the petitioner is advertising its business in the columns of the complainant's paper, the Evening Times. Chapter 207 of the Laws of 1926 (Comp.St.Supp.1930, § 107—131a), to which counsel have frequently referred during the argument this afternoon, in part says: "No restraining order or writ of injunction shall be granted or issued out of any court of this State in any case involving or growing out of a dispute concerning terms or conditions of employment, enjoining or restraining any person or persons, either singly or in concert, from terminating any relation of employment." I may right here observe that in this controversy among the petitioners and these defendants there is no question of employment or labor dispute involved. Among the petitioners, Varady, "Al's Market," and the defendants, there is absolutely no "dispute concerning terms or conditions of employment" whatever. Continuing with the reading of the provisions of the statute from the point where I stopped, the act says: "or from ceasing to perform any work or labor, or from peaceably and without threats or intimidation recommending, advising or persuading others so to do; or from peaceably and without threats or intimidation being upon any public street or highway or thoroughfare for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information, or to peaceably and without threats or intimidation persuade any person or persons to work or abstain from working, or to employ or to cease to employ any party to a labor dispute, or to peaceably and without threats or intimidation recommend, advise or persuade others so to do, provided said persons remain separated one from the other at intervals of ten paces or more." On the question of picketing, the statute limits such employment entirely to "disputes" arising among an employer and his employees. In this case, as I have already stated, there is no such issue. No employer or employee relationship arises. Between the petitioners and the defendants, there is no labor dispute. Varady, or the "Market," never employed any of these defendants. Yet it is clearly established, by the affidavits of both sides, these defendants attempt to, and in fact did, picket the place of business of the petitioners'; that they did then and there, by such means, and also with signs or placards, or by statements from the picket line, endeavor to persuade the public from patronizing the business of the...