Music Hall Theatre v. M.P.M.O. Local No. 165

• Decision Date: 06 June 1933
• Citation: 249 Ky. 639
• Parties: Music Hall Theatre v. Moving Picture Machine Operators Local No. 165 et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

249 Ky. 639

Music Hall Theatre v. Moving Picture Machine Operators Local No. 165 et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided June 6, 1933.

1. Injunction. — Peaceful picketing is lawful.

"Picketing" connotes peaceable methods of presenting a cause to the public in the vicinity of the employer's premises.

2. Injunction. — Picketing to acquaint public with facts which labor

regards as unfair, to give notoriety to its cause, and to use persuasive inducements to bring its own policies to triumph, is not per se unlawful.

3. Injunction. — Peaceable picketing cannot become a nuisance.

4. Injunction. — Unlawful picketing will be enjoined as irreparable interference and in order to avoid a multiplicity of suits.

5. Injunction. — Theater which employed nonunion moving picture machine operator at lower wage than it would have had to pay union operator held entitled to injunction restraining moving picture machine operators' union and others from using tactics of annoyance, intimidation, coercion, and misrepresentation, when picketing theater.

Evidence disclosed that, when theater employed nonunion moving picture machine operator at lower wage than it would have had to pay union operator, moving picture machine operators' union and others began a systematic picketing of theater by having a man patrol sidewalk at and near its entrance carrying banner with inscription reciting, "This theatre does not employ union operator"; that two or three men accompanied bearer of banner; that handbills were distributed; that picketers accosted prospective patrons at entrance and about theater, and told them that building was a fire trap, and that no show was going on at the time, and it would not open, and that operators were not union men and did not understand their business; that patrons were intimidated thereby; that excepting inscription on banner they were false and misleading, and the result was a falling off in business of about 50 per cent.

Appeal from Campbell Circuit Court.

CHARLES E. LESTER, Jr., and JAMES M. GILBERT for appellant.

ROGER L. NEFF, Jr., REYNOLD L. MURPHY, and POGUE, HOFFEIMER & POGUE and J.A. CULBERTSON for appellees.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY STANLEY, COMMISSIONER.

Reversing.

This suit was brought by the appellant, Music Hall Theatre, that is, John Burkart, doing business and operating a moving picture theater in Newport under that style, against the appellees, "Moving Picture Machine Operators, Local No. 165, International Alliance Theatrical State Employees of United States and Canada," an unincorporated association, which is a labor union, together with its officers and several individuals, to enjoin them and their agents from picketing and interfering with plaintiff's business. Their action was charged to be maliciously and unlawfully done and their representations to the public to be false and misleading, all of which had resulted in intimidation and coercion of prospective patrons. For several years members of this Union had been employed in operating plaintiff's machines. It appears that the theater had closed in the summer because its expenses were exceeding its income. As authorized by the contract which plaintiff had with the union, notice was given of its termination on August 31st. Negotiations to make a new contract were futile.

Before this time, an individual had been conducting a trade school in Cincinnati, in which the operation of moving picture projection machines was taught. He had incorporated an organization known as "Moving Projectionists' Operators of America." Upon completing the prescribed course, the students in this school were given a card of membership in it. The organization was in no way affiliated with the American Federation of Labor or any other union. It was an adjunct of the trade school, and seems to have been merely a scheme which permitted the specious statements that its members were members of a union. This case has the atmosphere of principally being a contest between the union and the trade school.

On September 4th the plaintiff employed one of its members of this school organization at a substantially less wage than he would have had to pay a member of the defendant Union. Thereupon the defendants and their representatives began a systematic picketing of plaintiff's theater by having a man patrol the sidewalk at and near its entrance carrying a banner with this inscription: "This Theatre does not employ Union Operator member of Local No. 165, M.P.M.O. & I.A. T.S.E. of U.S.A. & Can. Affiliated with the American Federation of Labor." Two or three men accompanied the bearer of the banner. Handbills were distributed, but the record does not disclose their contents. There is substantial evidence that, in addition to these acts, the picketers accosted prospective patrons at the entrance and about the theater, and, calling them aside,...