Mitnick v. Furniture Workers Union

Decision Date08 July 1938
PartiesMITNICK v. FURNITURE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 66, C.I.O. OF CITY OF NEWARK, et al.
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where no strike or other labor con troversy exists, picketing of an employer's place of business, boycotting of employer's customers and picketing of their places of business (secondary picketing) is unlawful and will be enjoined.

2. Under such circumstances an injunction against the distribution of circulars in the vicinity of customers' places of business, pursuant to an attempted boycott, is not violative of defendants' rights under Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution of New Jersey.

Suit by Bernard Mitnick, individually and trading as the Metropolitan Upholstery Company, against the Furniture Workers Union, Local No. 66, C. I. O. of City of Newark, and others, to restrain certain activities of the defendants usually incidental to a strike or other labor controversy.

Injunction granted.

Seymour J. Solomon, of Newark, for complainant. Solomon Golat, of Newark, for defendants.

BERRY, Vice Chancellor.

>

The bill is for an injunction to restrain certain activities of the defendants usually incidental to a strike or other labor controversy. They are unique in that the controversy of which they are the usual concomitant is non-existent. Among these activities are threats of picketing the complainant's place of business and actual picketing and boycotting of complainant's customers.

The complainant is a manufacturer and wholesale dealer in furniture, and has been engaged in this business for about eight years, and at his present location, No. 393 High Street, Newark, for about two years. He does a gross business of $150,000, and has about twenty employees, none of whom, at the inception of the activities complained of, were members of any labor union. Complainant says that he has recently been "informed" that two of his employees have lately become affiliated with the defendant union, but none of the employees have expressed any dissatisfaction with their wages, hours of work or other conditions of employment. There is no strike of any of such employees. All have continued in complainant's employ with apparent satisfaction. About one-half of them have written contracts of employment with complainant which do not expire until some time in 1939. Complainant conducts his business on the open shop plan and has never been involved in any labor difficulties with his employees. Recently defendants sought to unionize complainant's business and endeavored to induce complainant to sign a closed shop contract. He expressed a willingness to execute such a contract if a majority of his employees desired it, but not a single employee evidenced such desire. When complainant was importuned to sign the closed shop contract defendants informed him that if he refused to do so, the defendant union would "go after the complainant's trade" and the proofs show that immediately following his refusal the defendant union called upon some of the complainant's customers and requested them to withhold their patronage from complainant because he maintained a non-union shop, and threatened these customers that if they did not immediately sever their business relations with him their places of business would be picketed and boycotted; and circulars were distributed urging the public not to purchase complainant's merchandise of such customers.

Some of these customers acceded to the defendant's demands and cancelled orders placed with complainant. Other customers refused to submit and as a result representatives of the defendant union have picketed in the vicinity of such customers' places of business and have distributed among passersby circulars of which the following is a sample:

"AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC

PLEASE DON'T BUY

Upholstered Furniture

Manufactured by

METROPOLITAN UPH. CO.

on Sale at

CANTER'S FURNITURE CO.

113 Springfield Ave. Newark

Furniture Made by

METROPOLITAN UPHOLSTERY CO.

is NON-UNION

PLEASE BUY FURNITURE BEARING

THE UNION LABEL

HELP US MAINTAIN THE

AMERICAN STANDARD OF LIVING!

Furniture Union, Local 66, C. I. O.

1 Broome Street, Newark, N. J."

These circulars have also been posted on telephone poles and other convenient spots in the vicinity of customers' business places. None of these recited facts are in dispute, except that defendants claim that none of their activities included any threats, intimidation or attempted coercion. These activities are defended on the ground that they are entirely peaceable, are merely in furtherance of the interests of the members of the defendant union, and for the information of the public. Except for an argument in justification of the distribution of such circulars, and to be hereinafter discussed, the facts of this controversy would not merit discussion, as where no strike or labor controversy exists, picketing of an employer's place of business is unlawful. Snead & Co. v. International Molders' Union of North America, 103 N.J. Eq. 332, 143 A. 331; Feller v. Local 144, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, 121 N.J.Eq. 452, 191 A. 111; Mode Novelty Company v. Taylor, 122 N.J.Eq. 593, 195 A. 819. A fortiori, is secondary picketing of the business places of the customers of such employer unlawful. Evening Times Printing & Publishing Company v. American Newspaper Guild, 124 N. J.Eq. 71, 199 A. 598.

It is contended that defendants' conduct is not picketing in the strict sense of the word because the individuals distributing the circulars do not confine their parading or stations to the space immediately in front of the customers' places of business, but extend their activities over a territory as far removed therefrom as one block; and that with respect to the complainant's place of business no picketing has ever occurred; but the accuracy of the defining word is of little moment. Evening Times Printing & Publishing Company v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Simon v. Schwachman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1938
    ... ...        Unlawful ... Interference. Labor. Labor Union. Picketing. State Labor ... Relations Act. Equity Jurisdiction, To enjoin ... 443, 472. Ferguson v. Peake, 18 ... F.2d 166, 57 App. D.C. 124. Mitnick v. Furniture Workers ... Union, 124 N.J. Eq. 147. Quinn v. Leathem, ... ...
  • Simon v. Schwachman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1938
    ...254 U.S. 443, 472, 41 S.Ct. 172, 65 L.Ed. 349, 16 A.L.R. 196;Ferguson v. Peake, 57 App.D.C. 124, 18 F.2d 166;Mitnick v. Furniture Workers Union, 124 N.J.Eq. 147, 200 A. 553; Quinn v. Leathem, [1901] A.C. 495.1 The defendants rely on legislation, beginning in 1935, as changing the pre-existi......
  • United Union Brewing Co. v. Beck, 27554.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 13, 1939
    ... ... United Brewery, Flour, Cereal and Soft Drink Workers of ... America, which, for brevity, we shall refer to as Brewery ... Workers Union ... Suburban Newsdealers' Association, ... N.J.Chancery, 154 A. 534, 9 N.J.Misc. 373; Mitnick ... v. Furniture Workers Union, Local No. 66, C.I.O., 124 ... N.J.Eq. 147, 200 A. [200 ... ...
  • Miller's, Inc. v. Journeymen Tailors Union Local No. 195
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • February 19, 1940
    ...222, 193 A. 808; affirmed 123 N.J.Eq. 172, 196 A. 474; Mode Novelty Co. v. Taylor, 122 N.J.Eq. 593, 195 A. 819; Mitnick v. Furniture Workers, etc., 124 N.J.Eq. 147, 200 A. 553. The defendants claim the right to peaceably picket for the purpose of publicizing the existence of their dispute a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT