Gilchbist Co. v. Metal Polishers, Buffers & Platers Local Union No. 44 of Metal Polishers Int'l Union
| Decision Date | 12 May 1919 |
| Citation | 113 A. 320 |
| Parties | GILCHBIST CO. v. METAL POLISHERS, BUFFERS & PLATERS LOCAL UNION NO. 44 OF METAL POLISHERS INTERNATIONAL UNION et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
"Not to be officially reported."
Suit by the Gilchrist Company against the Metal Polishers, Buffers & Platers Local Union No. 44 of the Metal Polishers International Union, and others. Restraint contained in order to show cause continued; other restraint continued until final hearing.
Pitney, Hardin & Skinner and A. F. Skinner, all of Newark, for complainant.
Henry Carless, of Newark, for defendants.
LANE, V. C. (orally). As I announced at the conclusion of the oral argument, the only question of fact to be determined is as to whether the contract between complainant and the union expires May 2d or May 29th. The contract must be construed precisely the same as contracts between individuals. There is only one piece of written evidence in the case, and that is the letter sent by the Gilchrist Company to the union, in which it is distinctly stated that the contract is to be considered for a period of one year from the date of the letter. That letter asked for a reply in writing. A reply was not so delivered, but it is conceded that the union accepted the terms proposed by the company in the letter with respect to compensation, and the men have worked under the arrangement set out in the letter from May 29, 1918 to May 2, 1919. It is stated by defendants that, at the time complainant company, through its president, was advised of the acceptance of the terms contained in the letter by the men, he was likewise informed that the agreement should date from May 2d, and it is upon this oral testimony that the contention of the defendants is rested.
Where a proposal is made in writing, and that proposal accepted orally or by action thereunder, the inference is that all of the terms are accepted, and the burden is on the one who asserts the contrary to clearly prove his case.
The contract was for a valid consideration; the company proposed as a condition that there should be no further labor troubles, in which the unions would be a party, for a period of one year from the date of the letter, to advance wages. That letter, or the contract evidenced by that letter, of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Sideboard
... ... agreement between labor union and employer is primarily for ... benefit of ... Gilchrist ... Co. v. Metal Polishers Union, 113 A. 320 ... The ... ...
-
Mississippi Theatres Corporation v. Hattiesburg Local Union No. 615
...132; Sutton v. Unity Button Works, Inc., 258 N.Y.S. 863; Harper et al. v. Local Union No. 520, etc., 48 S.W.2d 1033; Gilchrist Co. v. Metal Polishers, etc., 113 A. 320; Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Sideboard, 161 Miss. 4, 133 So. Counsel for appellants attacks the bill of complaint on the ground......
-
Christiansen v. Local 680 of Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees of N.J.
...contract. In our reports are several cases by or against unions based on contracts of the kind under discussion. In Gilchrist Co. v. Metal Polishers, N.J.Ch., 113 A. 320, the union was enjoined from ordering a strike in violation of the contract. Master Weavers Institute v. Associated, etc.......
-
Harper v. Local Union No. 520, I. B. of E. W., 7791.
...acts in violation of the collective agreement. Burgess v. Georgia, F. & A. Ry. Co., 148 Ga. 417, 96 S. E. 865; Gilchrist Co. v. Metal Polishers (N. J. Ch.) 113 A. 320; Nederlandsch, etc., v. Stevedores' etc. (D. C.) 265 F. 397, 400. Due, no doubt, to the general attitude of aversion on the ......