Miller's, Inc. v. Journeymen Tailors Union Local No. 195 of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Am.

• Decision Date: 10 October 1940
• Docket Number: No. 220.,220.
• Citation: 15 A.2d 824,128 N.J.Eq. 162
• Parties: MILLER'S, Inc. v. JOURNEYMEN TAILORS UNION LOCAL NO. 195 OF AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

15 A.2d 824

128 N.J.Eq. 162

MILLER'S, Inc.

v. JOURNEYMEN TAILORS UNION LOCAL NO. 195 OF AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA et al.

No. 220.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Oct. 10, 1940.

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Suit by Miller's Incorporated, against the Journeymen Tailors Union Local No. 195 of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America and another, to enjoin defendants from picketing complainant's place of business. From a decree of vice chancellor 15 A.2d 822 advising that picketing be enjoined, the defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

David H. Sterner, of Jersey City, for complainant respondent.

Isserman, Isserman & Kapelsohn, of Newark (Sol D. Kapelsohn, of Newark, of counsel), for defendants appellants.

PER CURIAM.

The complainant conducts a small tailoring business. Other than its officers, it employs one tailor regularly. It entered into a contract with the defendant labor union not to employ any but members of that union and also fixing wages and hours of work. That contract expired on October 30, 1939. The complainant employed the defendant, Magnapera, a member of that union. The contract was not renewed but a contract was made between complainant and another labor union effective from November 1, 1939. Under its terms complainant agreed not to employ any one not a member of that union. Defendant, Magnapera, not being a member of that union was discharged from his employment on October 30, 1939, and a new employee was hired to take his place from November 1, 1939, who was a member of the new contracting union. Defendant, Magnapera, assisted by other members of his union, thereupon picketed the complainant's place of business. They carried signs to the effect that there was a strike and that employees had been locked out.

The prayer of the bill was to enjoin the picketing. Vice Chancellor Fielder, to whom the case was referred, decided that there were no grievances which had a legal basis and that therefore no real dispute existed, that a nuisance existed which affected complainant's private rights and advised that the picketing be enjoined.

We are in accord with the conclusions of the Vice Chancellor.

We find no merit in the arguments advanced by appellants as grounds for reversal. One of the grounds urged is that the court below erred in its rulings on the admissibility of evidence. The evidence offered by the appellant and excluded was for the purpose of showing the circumstances of the negotiations for the renewal of the appellant's contract; the motives which actuated the picketing and the absence...