Jones v. E. Van Winkle Gin & Mach. Works

• Decision Date: 18 August 1908
• Parties: JONES et al. v. E. VAN WINKLE GIN & MACHINE WORKS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

62 S.E. 236

131 Ga. 336

JONES et al. v. E. VAN WINKLE GIN & MACHINE WORKS.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 18, 1908

Syllabus by the Court.

It is unlawful for any person or association of persons to interfere with the business of another by means of force menaces, or intimidation, so as to prevent others from entering into or remaining in the employment of his service.

An injunction may issue in a proper case to restrain persons from attempting, by threats, violence, or intimidation, or other unlawful means, to prevent any person from engaging in remaining in, or performing the business, labor, or duties of any lawful enterprise or occupation, although the acts sought to be restrained, if committed, constitute a crime.

Where workmen quit the service of their employer, and, as a means of inducing him to accede to their demands, establish pickets at or near the approaches of his premises for the purpose of inducing others from remaining in or entering into his employment, they and their confederates will be enjoined from the keeping of patrols when such patrols resort to intimidation or any manner of coercion to prevent others from entering into or remaining in the service of their late employer, to the irreparable damage of his business.

[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 27, Injunction § 175.]

Equity will not enjoin employés who have quit the service of their employer from attempting by proper argument to persuade others from taking their places, so long as they do not resort to force or intimidation, or obstruct the public thoroughfares.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; J. T. Pendleton, Judge.

Bill by the E. Van Winkle Gin & Machine Works against the Atlanta Lodge No. 1 of the International Association of Machinists and member thereof. From an order granting an injunction, J. L. Jones and others bring error. Affirmed.

Jas. L. Mayson and R. R. Arnold, for plaintiffs in error.

Ellis, Wimbish & Ellis and Peeples & Jordan, for defendant in error.

EVANS P.J.

The E. Van Winkle Gin & Machine Works, a corporation, brought this action against the Atlanta Lodge No. 1 of the International Association of Machinists, an incorporated body, and certain members thereof, who had lately been in the employment of the plaintiff, but who were on a strike, to enjoin them from picketing, intimidating, and otherwise interfering with the plaintiff's employés and business. The defendants showed cause against the grant of an injunction, both by demurrer and answer. After hearing evidence, the defendants were "enjoined from placing themselves, their agents or confederates, near the approaches to the petitioner's premises described in the petition and adjoining thereto to induce persons working for petitioner not to work for it, and persons seeking employment by petitioner not to enter petitioner's employment, by threats of violence, intimidation, or persuasion, until the further order of the court." Exception is taken to the judgment in its entirety, and specially to so much thereof as forbids the defendants from placing themselves in or near the premises of the plaintiff for the purpose of persuading persons not to enter the plaintiff's employment, or to quit the same, so long as the entrances to the plaintiff's premises were not obstructed, and so long as violence, force, and intimidation were not used. The points raised by the demurrer were not argued in the brief, but only the legality of the decree and the sufficiency of the evidence to support it.

The lawfulness or unlawfulness of "picketing" has been the subject-matter of discussion in a large number of cases in this country. In the absence of statutes, courts have drawn from the elemental principles of the common law certain standards by which this modern factor used by labor unions as a means of settling controversies between employer and employés must be regulated. Every individual has a natural right to pursue a lawful occupation, and to conduct his business according to his own plans and policies, where he does not offend the law, or unlawfully infringe upon the rights of others. It is the right of every person or corporation to hire and discharge men at pleasure, subject to liability for damages for breach of contract, and every man has the right to work for another or to quit his service at his pleasure, subject to the same liability. But no person or association of persons has the right to interfere with the business of another by means of force, menaces, or intimidation, so as to prevent others from entering into or remaining in the employment of his service. In California it was held that a merchant is entitled to an injunction against the maintaining in front of his place of business by a labor union of pickets bearing placards which tend to intimidate his employés and patrons, with intent to do so, for the purpose of compelling him to pay the prices fixed by the union to his union employés. Golberg v. Stablemen's Union, 149 Cal. 429, 86 P. 806, 8 L.R.A. (N. S.) 460 117 Am.St.Rep. 145. In Am. Steel & Wire Co. v. Wire Drawers' & Die Makers' Unions (C. C.) 90 F. 608, it appeared that the unions massed large bodies around the premises in which a strike was in progress; and the defendants were restrained from collecting in and about the approaches to the complainant's mills for the purpose of picketing or patrolling or guarding the streets, approaches, and gates, for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, or coercing any of the employés or any person seeking the employment of complainant. Other cases similar in principle might be added, but these are sufficient to illustrate our point, which is that when strikers patrol the streets and approaches of the premises where the strike is in progress, and their number is so great, or their conduct is such, as to intimidate and coerce the employés into quitting their employment, or others from seeking employment, they are guilty of unlawful acts, and will be enjoined from a continuance of them. Sometimes the number of strikers engaged on the patrol may be so great that those intended to be affected by the demonstration will be intimidated by the number of the strikers or their sympathizers without special overt acts. The courts have repeatedly held that the assembling of strikers around the establishment of the employer in such numbers as will serve as a menace to those employed, or the keeping of patrols in front of or about the premises of the employer, accompanied by violence or any manner of coercion to prevent others from entering into or remaining in his service, will be enjoined. 24 Cyc. 835, and the numerous cases cited in the note to the text. While there is some reference in the evidence to the pickets of the strikers having spoken to some employés, the pleadings and evidence do not...