Miller's, Inc. v. Journeymen Tailors Union Local No. 195

• Decision Date: 19 February 1940
• Docket Number: 129/21
• Parties: MILLER'S, Inc. v. JOURNEYMEN TAILORS UNION LOCAL NO. 195 et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

15 A.2d 822

MILLER'S, Inc.

v. JOURNEYMEN TAILORS UNION LOCAL NO. 195 et al.

129/21

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Feb. 19, 1940.

Action by Miller's, Inc., against the Journeymen Tailors Union Local No. 195 and others to enjoin the picketing of complainant's store.

Decree for complainant in accordance with opinion.

Decree affirmed in 15 A.2d 824.

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

Isserman, Isserman & Kapelsohn, of Newark, for defendants.

FIELDER, Vice Chancellor.

The complainant, a corporation, conducts a shop for the retail sale of men's and boys' clothing. Its president and vice-president are the only salesmen therein and a tailor is its only other regular employee. The defendant Magnapera was employed by complainant as a tailor and while so employed joined the defendant union, which is affiliated with the C. I. O. In December, 1938, complainant entered into a contract with defendant union to employ no one as a tailor who was not a member of said union and Magnapera continued his employment with complainant at the wages and working hours fixed by the contract. The contract by its terms expired October 30, 1939, and on the evening of that day he was discharged. Complainant refused to enter into a new contract with defendant union and made a contract with another union affiliated with the A. F. of L., which contract bears date November 1, 1939, and is similar in its purpose to the expired contract with defendant union. On October 31, 1939, complainant employed a member of the other union to fill Magnapera's place, which new employee has continued working for complainant to the present time. November 2, 1939, Magnapera went on "strike" and has paraded in front of complainant's store during business hours of each day carrying a sign which at first stated, "Miller's tailors on strike for better conditions and for Union recognition" but which was subsequently changed to read, "Miller's tailors locked out", and he has continued to so picket to the present time, being relieved by other members of defendant union.

The joint answer filed by defendants alleges that prior to the expiration of the contract with the defendant union, and in violation thereof, complainant declared a lockout against Magnapera; that because of complainant's refusal to enter into a new contract with defendant union and because of said lockout, the defendants have declared a strike, and in pursuance of said strike have the right to peaceably picket to publicize the existence of their dispute and other grievances claimed against complainant.

Magnapera was not a party to the contract between complainant and defendant union. It may be that he expected to and did obtain a benefit under the contract, but it is not true that complainant locked out or discharged him prior to the contract's expiration.

The question here presented does not involve a strike for higher pay, or better working conditions, or even for recognition of union labor. Such dispute as may be said to exist arose between complainant and Magnapera and it is whether the complainant had the right to discharge him, with or without reason. The owner of a business has the right to select his employees and to discharge them at will, when not bound by contract to act otherwise, and since complainant's contract with defendant union, under which Magnapera might claim a benefit, was at an end, complainant was under no obligation to retain Magnapera in its employ and it had the absolute right to discharge him and hire another man in his place, whether that other man was or was not a member of a labor union, just as Magnapera had the right to quit his job if he felt so disposed. Jersey City Printing Co. v. Cassidy, 63 N. J.Eq. 759, 53 A. 230; Connett v. United Hatters, 76 N.J.Eq. 202, 74 A. 188; Canter Sample Furniture House v. Retail Furniture, etc., 122 N.J.Eq. 575, 196 A. 210.

Having the right to discharge Magnapera if complainant so desired, his discharge cannot be said to have created a lockout or a labor dispute, for Magnapera had no vested right in his job and his job was not kept open but was filled as soon as he was discharged by hiring a permanent employee in his place. He has no job which by a "strike" he can get back or which the defendant union can get back for him, for complainant says its business is going on normally and that it will not make a new contract with defendant union...