Hotel and Railroad News Co. v. Clark
| Decision Date | 20 December 1922 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | HOTEL AND RAILROAD NEWS COMPANY v. THERESA CLARK & others. |
October 19, 1922.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., BRALEY, PIERCE CARROLL, & JENNEY, JJ.
Unlauful Interference. Labor Union. Equity Pleading and Practice Bill.
A suit in equity by a corporation, engaged in distributing newspapers to retail dealers in Boston and adjacent cities and towns and in selling newspapers, periodicals, confectionery and cigars at leased stands in elevated railway stations, against the officers and members of a union composed of women who had been or were in the plaintiff's employ, to enjoin the defendants from certain acts of unlawful interference with the plaintiff's business alleged to have been threatened was referred to a master, who in substance found as follows By reason of the discharge of some of the plaintiff's women employees and the issuance by it of a certain circular the defendant union was formed. A series of meetings between the plaintiff's president and committees of the union and others occurred, during which demands were made upon the plaintiff which primarily were that the women discharged should be reinstated, the union recognized and a "closed shop" established, and the plaintiff's president was told that if the demands were not complied with, "the
Central Labor Union Committee is waiting for our report, and it will be taken up by the Central Labor Union and this committee" which "work together on the matter." At none of the conferences was any complaint made concerning wages or the hours and conditions of work. The plaintiff refused the demands and brought the suit. During the progress of the hearings before the master, a circular was prepared, issued and circulated by the defendants' agent, which was inaccurate, misleading and unwarranted in many material particulars and which was intended to disparage the plaintiff by charging it with unjust treatment of its employees and with having acted arbitrarily and without justifieation in refusing to reinstate discharged employees or to negotiate for their return as members of the union. Held, that
(1) The plaintiff's refusal to accede to the demands of the defendants was lawful;
(2) When the suit was filed, the plaintiff was warranted in apprehending a united effort to force it to comply with the demands made by the defendants;
(3) It was not necessary to file a supplemental bill to obtain relief from unlawful acts of the character evidenced by the circular published by the defendants' agent during the master's hearings;
(4) The means employed by the defendants to enforce their demand constituted a wrong intentionally inflicted and warranted relief in equity;
(5) A decree for the plaintiff properly enjoined the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's delivery of newspapers, from compelling or attempting to compel the plaintiff to enter into an agreement with the defendant union, from compelling or attempting to compel the plaintiff to unionize its place of business and to maintain a "closed shop" with respeet to its saleswomen, from interfering with persons who might wish to enter the plaintiff's employ for the purpose of compelling them to join the defendant Union or to assist in enforcing the defendants' demands on the plaintiff, and from compelling or attempting to compel the defendant to reinstate or re-employ its former employees;
(6) It not being shown that the defendants had threatened to inaugurate a strike, a clause in the decree enjoining them "From calling, conducting, continuing or in any way engendering or supporting any strike or concerted action in pursuance of any effort to accomplish the objects described in the bill of complaint" should be eliminated;
(7) A clause of the decree enjoining the defendants "From creating, uttering or publishing any statement, letter or other document containing matter injurious to the business of the plaintiff or intended to interfere therewith or calculated to interfere with or intimidate its employees present or prospective or to deter customers present or prospective from patronizing the plaintiff" should be modified to read
"from publishing and circulating any statement in whole or in part of the nature and character of the" circular above deseribed "for the purpose of eoercing the plaintiff to reinstate its discharged employees and to employ only union labor."
BILL IN EQUITY, filed in the Superior Court on October 21, 1920, originally against Theresa Clark "individually and as president of a voluntary association called the `News Stand Girls' Union No. 1323, A. F. of L.,' Margaret Stapleton individually and as recording secretary of said association and all the officers and members of said association, they being too numerous to be individually named as defendants, but being properly and adequately represented by" the defendants Clark and Stapleton; Louis Leventhal and William J. Boyle, likewise individually and as officers of "The Newspaper Wagon Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers' Union Local 259, 1. B. C. T. C. S. & H.," and the members of that association as represented by them. The prayers of the bill sought, besides an accounting and damages for certain alleged acts of unlawful interference with the plaintiff's business, temporary and permanent injunctions restraining interference "in any way with the business of the plaintiff in pursuance of the objects of" a conspiracy alleged in the bill of complaint and especially from interfering with delivery of newspapers by the plaintiff, from compelling or in any way endeavoring to compel the plaintiff to enter into any agreement with the News Stand Girls' Union as a contracting party, from compelling or in any way endeavoring to compel the plaintiff to unionize or place its business on the "closed shop" basis with respect to its saleswomen, "from calling, conducting, continuing or in any way engendering or supporting any strike or concerted action in pursuance of" a conspiracy alleged in the bill of complaint or for the accomplishment of any of the objects therein described, and from in any way interfering with or intimidating any of the employees of the plaintiff or any persons who might be desirous of entering its employ for the purpose of compelling such persons to join either of said unions or for the purpose of compelling such persons to assist the defendants in accomplishing the objects set out in the bill of complaint.
In the Superior Court, the suit was referred to a master. An agreement was filed on December 30, 1920, "that no strike of the officers or members of the Drivers' Union was or is contemplated by the News Wagon Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers' Union, Local 259, and accordingly it is agreed that the bill may be dismissed as to the officers and members of said union, without prejudice and without costs." An interlocutory decree accordingly was entered and the suit proceeded against the remaining defendants only, the officers and members of the News Stand Girls' Union, No. 1323, A. F. of L., who hereafter will be called the defendants.
Material findings by the master are described in the opinion.
The suit was heard by Sisk, J., by whose order, the plaintiff's claim for damages being waived, a final...
To continue reading
Request your trial