Moore Drop Forging Co. v. McCarthy

• Citation: 243 Mass. 554,137 N.E. 919
• Parties: MOORE DROP FORGING CO. v. McCARTHY et al.
• Decision Date: 09 January 1923
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

243 Mass. 554

137 N.E. 919

MOORE DROP FORGING CO.

v.McCARTHY et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Jan. 9, 1923.

Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Hampden County.

Suit by the Moore Drop Forging Company against Daniel C. McCarthy and others for an injunction. From the final decree, both plaintiff and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The bill named as defendants a number of individuals and the officers and members of certain labor unions, and asked an injunction restraining them from interfering with plaintiff's business in various enumerated ways. The case was heard before a master, whose material findings are given in the opinion. Exceptions to his report were overruled, and a final decree entered restraining defendants from interfering or attempting to interfere with plaintiff's business, by inducing or persuading any person to leave its employment, by preventing persons from entering its employment, by preventing or seeking to prevent plaintiff from entering into individual contracts with its employees, by persuading or coercing any person from patronizing plaintiff, by inducing or attempting to induce any person to break any contract with plaintiff, or by parading at or near plaintiff's plant with signs, wagons, or trucks for the purpose of interfering with, or annoying, or disturbing plaintiff's employees. The letters from the Springfield Central Labor Union to other central labor unions mentioned in the opinion called attention to the fact that plaintiff was forcing its workers to sign a pledge not to join a labor union, and operating under the individual contract system, and stated that plaintiff was doing work for certain automobile and other manufacturers, and also manufactured a certain wrench. The first letter asked the addressees to write plaintiff stating their opinion of its labor policy and defining their stand in regard to the purchase and use of goods manufactured by plaintiff. The second letter suggested an investigation to learn if the wrenches mentioned were on sale in the addressees' cities, and asked the addressees to write plaintiff telling them their opinion of its policy.Herbert A. Baker, of Boston, for plaintiff.

George F. Leary, George D. Cummings, and George F. Palmer, all of Springfield, for defendants.

CROSBY, J.

This is a bill to restrain certain defendants as individuals, and the officers and members of the Springfield Central Labor Union, their agents, servants and attorneys, and all persons acting in aid of or in conjunction with them, from interfering or attempting to interfere with the business of the plaintiff. The case was referred to a master who filed a report, and an interlocutory decree has been entered overruling the defendants' exceptions thereto, and confirming the report; no appeal was taken from this decree, and a final decree has been entered from which both the plaintiff and the defendants appealed.

The master found that in October, 1920, the plaintiff notified its employees that owing to business conditions they would be asked to accept a reduction in wages of 10 per cent.; that while all the plaintiff's skilled employees were union men there was no understanding or agreement between them and the plaintiff that only union men should be employed; that the plaintiff's plant was not a closed shop in the sense that only members of a union could be employed. The question of the acceptance of the reduction of wages was discussed at a meeting of the four crafts involved, and it was voted to refuse to accept the proposed reduction; and on October 11, 1920, the plaintiff was notified to that effect. The plaintiff's general manager, Fuller, thereupon stated to the committee that 30 days from that date all agreements between the plaintiff and any and all unions would cease. The only union which then had a working agreement with the plaintiff was the blacksmiths and drop forges; that agreement provided for a 30-day notice in the event of the desire of either party to cancel the same.

The master found as to the other unions that, while there was no working agreement, there was an understanding on the part of the men, recognized by Mr. Fuller, that the men were entitled to a notice of 30 days of a change or cancellation of the terms or conditions under which they were then employed.

On October 20, 1920, Mr. Fuller, at the request of a representative of the unions met a committee representing the four crafts for the purpose of discussing with them the ‘elimination of waste,’ and ways and means of reducing the cost of production; it being thought by both parties that if such cost could be decreased, the reduction in wages could be avoided. At this meeting Mr. Fuller intimated that the employees place their suggestions in writing and meet him again on October 27, when they would be considered. The committee prepared some written suggestions and were ready to meet him on October 27, but on that date they were notified that he was in Detroit and would not be able to meet them until later. He did not meet them on the subsequent date and did not attempt to do so afterwards. The 30-day notice given by the plaintiff's manager expired November 11, but the men continued to work under the same conditions of employment and at the same rates of wages until December 9, 1920.

The master found that Mr. Fuller did not at any time state to any person that the 30-day notice was withdrawn or revoked, but that the committee were led to believe by him, and did believe, that if the question of wages, which was the only matter under discussion, could be disposed of, the employees would be allowed to continue in their employment under the terms and conditions then existing.

For several months the business of the plaintiff had decreased; owing to the general business depression the number of its employees had been reduced, and on December 9, 1920, all employees were requested to sign an application for employment which recited in part as follows:

That employment was ‘upon a strictly nonunion basis and I agree that while retained in employment I will not be or become a member of any trade union. That if I hereafter apply for membership in any trade union I will at once notify my employer, who may thereupon terminate my employment. That upon termination of my employment for any reason I will not in any manner annoy, molest or interfere with the business, customers or employees of said employer.’

The master found:

That the plaintiff did not intend to continue in its employ any employee who refused to sign this contract, and that this fact was known to the employees at the time. Fifty-eight men refused to sign the contract and were discharged on December 11. One hundred and twenty men who had signed left their work. ‘From December 11th to January 10th, the four unions, represented by a committee, called the joint committee, engaged in various activities against the plaintiff for the purpose of compelling it to abolish its newly established system of employment and to return to the former working conditions with its former employees. January 10, 1921, the plaintiff brought a bill in equity in this court to restrain the unions from carrying on certain activities alleged to be unlawful. This proceeding resulted in the stipulation entered into by both parties and on file in this court.’

It was also found that strike benefits have not been paid since the middle of December, 1921, and that with a few exceptions all the men who left the plaintiff's employ have secured employment elsewhere; that the plaintiff's business in August, 1921, was being operated in a normal and usual manner and to a normal and usual extent, and the places of all the union men who had left its employ were filled.

The master further found that in January, 1919, the Central Labor Union, for the purpose of combating the individual contract system of employment, appointed a committee to study the...