Gevas v. Greek Rest. Workers' Club

• Decision Date: 13 August 1926
• Citation: 134 A. 309
• Parties: GEVAS v. GREEK RESTAURANT WORKERS' CLUB et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

134 A. 309

GEVAS

v. GREEK RESTAURANT WORKERS' CLUB et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Aug. 13, 1926.

Bill for injunction by Gus Gevas, trading as the Essex Restaurant, against the Greek Restaurant Workers' Club and others. On return of rule to show cause. Decree for complainant.

Pearce R. Franklin, of Newark, for complainant.

John L. Hughes, of Newark, for defendants.

BERRY, Vice Chancellor. This bill is filed to obtain an injunction against the Greek Restaurant Workers' Club and certain individuals, some of whom are members of that organization, restraining them from unlawfully interfering with complainant's business, intimidating the complainant's employees, loitering and picketing upon the street in front of complainant's restaurant, and generally from hindering or interfering with or obstructing complainant's business, either by inducing or attempting to induce or compelling by threats, intimidation, force, or violence, any of complainant's employees to leave his service, or otherwise, or by interfering with the customers' peaceful patronage of that restaurant. The complainant conducts the Essex Restaurant at 919 Broad street, Newark, N. J., and has done so for six years last past. He has built up a substantial business there, the average annual gross receipts of which amount to $100,000. He employs 16 persons, including cooks, waitresses, etc. The defendants are the Greek Restaurant Workers' Club, sometimes known as "the Lunch Room-Cafeteria-Delicatessen Workers' Club, David Stein, an organizer and representative of the American Federation of Labor, Costas Dritsas, a member of the executive committee of the Greek Restaurant Workers' Club, and 20 other persons, who are either members of said club or were participants in the acts complained of in the bill.

I deem it important, as having a direct bearing on the activities of the defendant club which are here complained of, to now say that in April of this year seven other cases in which bills had been filed in this court by proprietors of Greek restaurants in and near Newark, against exactly the same defendants as are here named, and in which the acts complained of were of exactly the same character, came before me in the same manner as the instant case. In six of these cases, after hearing on return of the orders to show cause, I advise preliminary injunctions, denying an injunction in the seventh because of lack of proof.

The bill alleges that no strike exists in complainant's restaurant; that there has not been any strike in that establishment; that no employees had been discharged or left complainant's employ during the month preceding the filing of the bill; that none of the present employees of complainant are members of the defendant club; that prior to the acts complained of in the bill representatives of this club called on the complainant's employees and demanded that they join this club on pain of physical violence; that on July 9. 1926. a representative of the defendant club called on the complainant and tried to induce him to sign an agreement which provided that complainant would not employ any one in his business not a member of the defendant club: that he declined to do so; that immediately thereafter, members of the club appeared in front of the complainant's restaurant with placards on their breasts and backs on which were printed in bold type the following words: "Strike —the workers at Essex Lunch are on strike; we are striking to reduce our hours from twelve to ten and one day off a week"; that these men began parading back and forth on the sidewalks in front of the restaurant and so close to the entrance thereof as to interfere with the ingress and egress of the patrons; that the defendants have threatened physical violence against the complainant's employees if they continue to work for complainant and do not strike; the elbowing of patrons, frightening and intimidating them and threats of physical violence against them, and the use of indecent and abusive language; that ail of complainant's employees are satisfied with the conditions of their employment, have made no complaint, are not desirous of quitting their employment, and do not want to strike.

I think it can be fairly stated that substantially all of the material allegations of the bill are amply supported by complainant's affidavits. On one occasion complainant was obliged to transport two of his employees to their homes by automobile to avoid physical violence with which they had been threatened by some of the defendants, and at least one patron of complainant's restaurant has been assaulted by one of the pickets. At 6:45 a. m. on July 10, 1926, one of the complainant's employees, while on his way to work, was met at Lincoln Park by several of the leaders of the defendant club and threatened with physical violence in the event that he did not quit his job. Complainant's affidavits show that as high as 30 or 40 members of the defendant club or its sympathizers have been in front of complainant's restaurant at one time and have remained there for a period of six hours, assisting as they could in the demonstration which was there being staged. Defendants' affidavits deny this statement, and claim that there were never more that two members of defendant club on picket duty in front of the restaurant at one time. An analysis of the affidavits, however, leads me to the conclusion that, while there may have been but two members of the defendant club who wore the placards which are here objected to in front of the restaurant at any one time, there were at least four of the defendants, including the defendants Stein and Dritsas. continuously before the restaurant during all the period of picketing complained of with the exception of a few hours around midnight on July 10th. Stein and Dritsas admit that they were present during most of the picketing period, directing the activities of the pickets. Defendants submit the affidavit of one other labor organizer in support of their claim that no violence of intimidation was practiced by the pickets, and she incidently states that she was present also during a portion of the time of the picketing operation. I am convinced that the number of members of this club and pickets was much larger than the defendants admit, although it may be that many of the persons congregating before complainant's restaurant were merely onlookers making up the inevitable crowd that collects on occasions of this kind.

It clearly appears also that there is no strike of the employees of complainant's restaurant. It is true that many of the affidavits submitted on behalf of the defendants claim that a "walkout" occurred on July 9th; but a careful analysis of these affidavits discloses the fact that only four of complainant's employees, namely. Verges. Papaines, Agapitos, and T. Gevas, left at that time. It is also true that Agapitos says that ten men walked out, but he does not mention their names, and no other affiant makes any such claim, and as against this statement there are the affidavits of four employees of complainant and of the complainant himself to the effect that no walkout occurred, and that only one man had left the employ of complainant within one week prior to July 10th. The complainant's proof on this point is conclusive.

Defendants also claim that on July, 6, 1926, the defendant club received a written request from some of the employees of complainant, complaining of their treatment by their employer and seeking the support of the defendant club in calling a strike, if necessary, to obtain compliance with their demands; that the basis of this complaint was that the employees were required to work 12 hours a day for 7 days a week, and that they wanted these hours reduced to 10, and one day off a week. Complainant insists, however, that all of his employees, except two night men, worked 9 and 12 hours a day on alternate days for 6 days a week, and that the average work day was 10 1/2 hours. The letter referred to is attached to the affidavit of the defendant Stein, and is written on the letter head of the Lunch-Room-Cafeteria-Delicatessen Workers' Club. The following is an exact copy of the letter:

"Lunch Room—Cafeteria—Delicatessen Workers' Club.

"Reliable Cooks, Waiters, and All Kinds of Kitchen Help for All Occasions at Short Notice.

"262-4 Washington Street, Newark, N. J.

"July 6/26, 192-.

"To the Executive Roard Lunch Room Cafeteria Delicatessen Workers—Dear Sir and Brothers: We, the men working at the Essex Restaurant on Broad St., Newark, N. J., do hereby petition you to take action, by declaring a strike if necessary in order that the conditions as our contracts call for, mainly six days a week work and ten hours per day and reconiztion of our organisation be lived up to by the proprietor.

"Fraternally yours,

"Nick E. Vergos.

"Gustav Kraus.

"James Stavropoulos.

"John Doe (signature illegible).

"Efstathios Efstathiadis.

"Peter Papaines."

It will be noted that this letter is dated July 6th, and that it bears six signatures, purporting to be the signatures of employees of complainant. A careful examination of defendants' affidavits, however, discloses the fact that of these six, only two were employees of the complainant on the date of that letter. Two others, namely, Stavropoulos and Efstathiadis, had been in complainant's employ, but had left of their own accord. Stavropoulos left on July 1st. He is a member of the defendant club, and complains that he was discharged by complainant because of that fact. This is denied by complainant. This, however, is immaterial, the fact remaining that his employment was terminated six days before the letter was written. Efstathiadis voluntarily left complainant's employ on June 19th. According to his own affidavit, he quit because the complainant would not give him a night off when he asked for it. The other two men whose signatures are appended to the letter do not appear...