Local Union No. 313. Hotel and Restaurant Employees' International Alliance v. Stathakis

• Decision Date: 01 July 1918
• Docket Number: 89,93
• Citation: 205 S.W. 450,135 Ark. 86
• Parties: LOCAL UNION NO. 313. HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE, et al. v. STATHAKIS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

205 S.W. 450

135 Ark. 86

LOCAL UNION NO. 313. HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE, et al. v. STATHAKIS

Nos. 89, 93

Supreme Court of Arkansas

July 1, 1918

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Jno. E Martineau, Chancellor.

Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Suit for Injunction by Joe Stathakis against Local Union No. 313, Hotel and Restaurant Employees' International Alliance, and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Mehaffy, Reid, Donham & Mehaffy, of Little Rock, for appellants.

Moore, Smith, Moore & Trieber, of Little Rock, for appellee.

SMITH J. Hart and Humphreys, JJ., dissenting.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

Appellee operates two cafes in the city of Little Rock, one of which is located at 104 West Markham street and is known as Faust Cafe; the other is located at 106 South Main street and is known as Faust Coffee House. These cafes are located near the corner of Main and Markham streets, and are about one block apart. In the operation of this business appellee employed from 70 to 80 cooks, waiters, and helpers, and a disagreement arose between him and his help. It is unnecessary to consider the merits of this disagreement, but it eventuated in a demand on the part of his employees that appellee unionize his cafes. This demand was refused, and the refusal was followed by a strike, which was participated in by most of the employees. This strike was conducted by the officers and employees of local Union No. 313 of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees' International Union, which is a voluntary association of cooks and waiters and waitresses of the city of Little Rock. As an incident to the strike and in aid of it the Local Union ordered that appellee's places be "picketed." This consisted in having "pickets" patrol the sidewalks in front of the entrances to the cafes, exhibiting large placards, with the statements printed there-on in large red type that "This cafe is unfair to union labor," and "Look, Faust Cafe is unfair to union labor." One person, and occasionally two, walked continually in front 'of each of these cafes, carrying placards, and at meal times this number was sometimes increased.

The picketing continued for about a month, when suit was brought against the officers of the local union and certain of the pickets to enjoin them from further picketing appellee's places of business. The officers of the union admitted that they employed the pickets and paid them and had supervision over them and had representatives whose business it was to make regular inspections to see that the picketing was continuously carried on. Other restaurants and cafes in Little Rock which refused to unionize were being picketed at the same time. The demand that the restaurants should unionize meant that they should employ only persons who were members of the labor union. The officers of the union testified that they gave strict directions to the pickets to preserve order, to speak only when spoken to, and then only to answer respectfully questions asked them, and to keep walking the beats assigned them. These beats represented the fronts of the places of business which were being picketed. A number of the pickets testified that they obeyed these directions strictly, and in doing so endured insults, derision and abuse in silence and without resentment. No picket admitted having violated the instructions of the union which employed them.

On the other hand, there was testimony tending to show that such was not the case. Without naming the witnesses, it may be 'said' there was testimony to the following effect: A prospective customer was accosted by one of the pickets, who said, "Don't go 'in there, brother; it's a scab joint." He disregarded the warning and entered. While 'eating, a lady and two children undertook to enter. She opened the door, when the picket said, "Don't go in there, lady; it's a scab joint; it's unfair to union labor." She stopped, hesitated, appeared worried, and then turned and went away. Pickets accosted many persons about to enter the cafes; a number of whom turned away and did not enter. A picket said to one of these, "I know his line of business and will remember it." A picket was heard to say, "I would like to get a chance to wait on some of those scabs eating in there." Frequently cooks and waiters who were on a strike at other restaurants joined the pickets, and occasionally crowds gathered about the cafes and interfered with the free passage of customers, and the assistance of the police became necessary to clear away the crowds. Persons about to enter were seized by the arm and asked not to enter. Strikers had in some instances threatened employees with personal violence who refused to join the union. A waitress was told that if she did not join the union before the strike was won the house would have to turn her out when it was forced to recognize the union; but she refused to join the union and continued at work. Pickets inserted the placards in the faces of a number of persons who indicated an intention to enter the cafes, and many were thus deterred from entering. Stink balls were thrown in the cafes while meals were being served. And as a result of the conduct detailed above appellee sustained a loss of business In one month of $ 2,800.

It is very probable that the pickets were not responsible for all this misconduct. Much of it was no doubt attributable to their sympathizers. But if the witnesses for appellee are to be credited, the pickets were responsible for numerous acts of coercion and intimidation. And if this be true the officers of the union who employed these pickets must be held responsible for this misconduct, although they not only did not direct the misconduct but gave instructions to the contrary; for the misconduct occurred in the discharge of the duties for which the pickets had been employed and in the course of their employment as such. Bryeans v. Chicago, Mill & Lumber Co., 132 Ark. 282, 200 S.W. 1004; Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 38 S.Ct. 65, 62 L.Ed. 260, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 461.

The court entered the following decree:

"* * * That the defendants, and the agents and employees of each of the defendants, be and they are each restrained and enjoined while on, adjacent or near plaintiff's premises * * * from interfering with plaintiff's business, his customers, prospective customers or employes, and from picketing or patrolling, or causing to be picketed or patrolled the sidewalks or streets adjacent to plaintiff's said premises with placards designating said places of business as unfair to Union Labor or with placards otherwise so worded as to give said places such designation; and also that the defendants and the agents and employees of each of the defendants be and they are each restrained and enjoined from accosting or detaining or causing to be accosted or detained on the sidewalks or streets adjacent to plaintiff's premises any person or persons seeking to enter plaintiff's restaurants for the purposes of dissuading them from patronizing or working for plaintiff, or from calling their attention to any alleged unfairness of plaintiff's restaurants to Union Labor or otherwise undertaking to influence such employees or prospective patrons from entering the service of or patronizing plaintiff's restaurants."

Certain fundamental rights are recognized by each of the parties to this litigation as belonging to the other. It is recognized, and this court has expressly decided, that laborers have the right to organize into unions for the purpose of bargaining collectively for the betterment of their condition and, as an incident thereto, to strike collectively. Meier v. Speer, 96 Ark. 618, 132 S.W. 988, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 792. They have the right to say for whom and upon what terms they will work, and may act through their unions in the decision of these questions, provided, of course, no contracts of employment are broken. And when they fail, acting thus collectively, to agree with any employer and have gone up on a strike, they have the right to apprise the public of that fact and to solicit the support, not only of members of the union, but of rue public generally in any legitimate attempt to prevail in their controversy. Against the law as thus stated there appears to be no dissent. On the other hand, it is equally as well settled and as uniformly held by the courts that the labor unions have no right to resort to force, intimidation, or coercion. Publicity, as well as other means of persuasion, may be used; but force, coercion and intimidation may not be used.

Picketing as an aid to industrial strikes is somewhat of an innovation in the economic life of the nation, and the law on the subject Is in the formative period. It is a question of first impression in this state, and a number of other states, like this one, have no cases on the subject. However, there are a number of cases on the subject in both state and federal courts, but these courts are not in harmony on the subject.

Early cases upholding the right of picketing likened that action to the exercise of the 1 right of free speech. This was upon the theory that as a striker might tell an individual citizen his grievance and thereby appeal to him for support In his strike, so he might employ any lawful and proper means which gave the greatest effect to that right, and that he might therefore inscribe his grievances upon placards to be seen at a distance and to be read by many at the same time, provided the inscription was not libelous or otherwise unlawful. The existence of this right is still generally conceded, and we think such right exists. But it appears in the history of this movement as reflected in the opinions of the courts on the subject that there has been an...