Minico v. Craig

• Decision Date: 27 February 1911
• Citation: 94 N.E. 317,207 Mass. 593
• Parties: DE MINICO v. CRAIG et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

207 Mass. 593

94 N.E. 317

DE MINICO

v.CRAIG et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Feb. 27, 1911.

Case Reserved from Supreme Judicial Court, Worcester County.

Bill by Mariano De Minico against David Craig and others. Decree for plaintiff.

Hallowell & Hammond, for plaintiff.

Frederick W. Mansfield, for defendants.

LORING, J.

This bill is brought by a member of the Milford Branch of the Granite Cutters' International Association of America against the president and secretary of the Association and certain members of it who constituted its adjustment committee. The plaintiff seeks to have the defendants enjoined from combining against his employment as a foreman by Wells Bros., and for damages. The case went to a master and is before us on his report.

The plaintiff and one Ardolino had been employed by Wells Bros. as the foremen of their stone quarry at Hopkinton since March, 1909 (when work was begun there to furnish the stone for a building in process of erection in Boston), until the matters here complained of took place in the following June. On the evening of June 22, 1909, the Milford Branch of the Association voted to refuse to continue at work under the plaintiff and Ardolino as foremen, and pursuant to that vote none of the men employed by Wells Bros. went to work on June 23d, the next day. A meeting was had between Wells Bros. and the adjustment committee of the Association on that next day, June 23d, and the result of it was an agreement between Wells Bros. and the officers of the Association by which the men went back to work on the following day, June 24th, and the plaintiff and Ardolino were removed as foremen on Saturday night, June 26th. The plaintiff thereafter worked as a journeyman for Wells Bros. until January 10, 1910, when work at the quarry ceased.

The occasion for the strike was a discharge or a supposed discharge by the plaintiff of one Tronconi on the morning of June 22d. There was a rule of Wells Bros. forbidding the men to enter the blacksmith shop. On the day in question Tronconi went into the blacksmith shop to get some tools which were being sharpened for him and was ordered out by Ardolino, the other foreman. Later the plaintiff gave Tronconi some instructions which Tronconi understood to mean that he was discharged. But the plaintiff always denied that he intended to discharge Tronconi. Thereupon on the same day the president and two members of the adjustment committee of the Association had a conference with the plaintiff and Tronconi. At this conference Tronconi insisted that he had been unjustly discharged, the plaintiff denied that he had discharged him, and told him to go back to his work. The meeting of the Association was held on the evening of that day, the strike followed the next day and was ended by the agreement reached on the afternoon of the second day, as we have already stated above.

We pass by certain findings made by the master on issues raised by the pleadings which have now become immaterial, and come to his finding on the only issue now in dispute, namely, was the strike for a justifiable purpose?

The master begins the part of his report in which that question is considered with this finding: ‘I find * * * that the respondents in securing his [the plaintiff's] removal were actuated by personal objections some of them had against his continuance in the office of foreman.’

We take this finding as to the ‘respondents' to be a finding as to the action of the members of the Milford Branch of the Association, of which branch the defendants were officers, and that the defendants were liable if the action of the Association was illegal because they personally participated in it. As is pointed out by the defendants in their answer, there are no sufficient allegations in the bill to make all the members of the Association, as a class, parties defendant. See Pickett v. Walsh, 192 Mass. 572, 589, 78 N. E. 753,6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1067, 116 Am. St. Rep. 272.

The Milford Branch of the Association had a membership of 264 granite cutters and tool sharpeners working in four different shops, one of which was the shop in question run by Wells Bros. Ninety-seven of the 264 were employed by Wells Bros., and of this number the master finds that probably not more than one-third attended the meeting on the evening of June 22d.

The master's further findings on this point are in substance as follows: ‘While it is probable that the complainant made some minor mistakes, I am of the opinion that his work as foreman was acceptable to Wells Bros. Company, and that he was sufficiently competent to fill the position to the satisfaction of the company. No workman lost any pay or otherwise suffered any actual damage by reason of any mistakes made by the complainant. In regard to the enforcement of the rules, I find that the rules were established by the company, and that it was the duty of the complainant as foreman to see that they were enforced. I am of the opinion that the real complaint of the majority of the men claiming to have a grievance against the complainant and his fellow foreman Ardolino, was because of their enforcement of these rules, and that they did enforce them more strictly than the men had been accustomed to have them enforced.’ The master then states the attempts made by the plaintiff and Ardolino to enforce the rules of their employers, Wells Bros. He finds that they (1) had attempted to have the rule against going to the blacksmith shop strictly enforced; (2) to stop the men's knocking off work a few minutes before the working day ended; (3) to stop their using the compressed air to brush their clothes; and (4) in one instance to stop a man's eating his luncheon during working hours. The master's findings which follow are in these words: ‘I find that in doing these things the complainant did only what it was his duty as foreman to do, and while the enforcement of the shop rules may have been more rigid than what the men were accustomed to, the personal attitude and conduct of the complainant toward the men was not unduly severe or in any way oppressive, although some of...