Niedzialek v. Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers & Cosmetologists' Intern. Union of America, Local No. 552 (A.F.L.), 23

• Citation: 49 N.W.2d 273,331 Mich. 296
• Decision Date: 01 October 1951
• Docket Number: No. 23,23
• Parties: NIEDZIALEK et al. v. JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS & COSMETOLOGISTS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 552 (A.F.L.) et al. Motion
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

Page 273

49 N.W.2d 273

331 Mich. 296

NIEDZIALEK et al. v. JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS & COSMETOLOGISTS'

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 552

(A.F.L.) et al.

Motion No. 23.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 1, 1951.

John W. Coury, Milton Roberts, Detroit, for plaintiff and appellant.

Edward N. Barnard, Detroit, for defendants and appellees.

Before the Entire Bench.

NORTH, Justice.

Having first obtained leave of this Court, plaintiff has appealed from the circuit judge's ruling denying a temporary injunction sought in plaintiff's bill of complaint. Plaintiff claims that such refusal was an abuse of discretion and erroneous. On granting leave to appeal this Court issued a restraining order enjoining defendants from indulging in certain acts, including picketing of plaintiff's place of business, pending our decision of this appeal. While the Metropolitan Barbers' Association, Inc., a Michigan corporation, joined with John Niedzialek as plaintiff in this case, the corporation is not a party to this appeal. We herein refer to John Niedzialek as plaintiff.

In the main the relief sought is that defendants, who are members of Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers and Cosmetologists' International Union of America, Local No. 522 (A.F.L.), be enjoined from picketing Niedzialek's barber shop. According to allegations in the bill of complaint, Niedzialek is a licensed barber, who, since 1940, has owned and operated a barber shop in a building which he purchased on VanDyke avenue, in Detroit. He employs two other barbers who are also licensed. Niedzialek and these employees are members of the plaintiff Metropolitan Barbers' Association, Inc., which is composed of barbers who own or are employed in shops located on the east side of Detroit. There was no dispute of any kind between Niedzialek and his employees as to wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment. The bill of complaint alleges there was no strike in progress involving Niedzialek's shop; that the prices appellant charges for services are identical with those charged by barbers in shops affiliated with the defendant union. While it is denied in defendants' sworn answer, the bill of complaint also alleges that the wages and working conditions of Niedzialek's employees are at least equal, and in some respects superior, to those of members of the defendant union. However, defendants' answer fails to specify any particular in which the wages and working conditions of plaintiff's employees are not equal to those of employees in union shops, except possibly that the answer does set forth that union shops are closed at p. m. whereas appellant's shop is not closed until 7 p. m. According to the allegations of the bill of complaint, on November 23, 1949, defendants George Husk and Arthur A. Borowski, together with at least four other men, entered appellant's barber shop 'and demanded in a harsh and dictatorial manner that plaintiff immediately sign up with the defendant union or that they would commence at once to picket the premises.' Plaintiff did not comply with the demand. Picketing of plaintiff's premises was at once instituted. It is alleged in the bill, in substance, that the picketing was not of a peaceful character, but that instead the pickets interferred with prospective customers of appellant and, at least on one occasion, approached such a customer 'in a highly threatening manner,' in consequence of which plaintiff called the police; and that on the occasion of two similar disturbances it became necessary for plaintiff to summon the police. Other acts inconsistent with peaceful picketing are alleged as follows: That defendants 'have sought, by various illegal means and methods * * * to force and compel plaintiff to affiliate with the defendant union by becoming a so-called 'Union Shop', and to compel his employees to join the defendant union as members.' But defendants' answer specifically denies 'that the defendants have sought by various illegal means and efforts to force and compel the plaintiff to affiliate with defendant union, and they allege that all efforts on the part of the defendants have been legal and in accordance with law and within the protection afforded the defendants by the United States Constitution.' Aside from the issue of whether defendants seek to compel unionization of plaintiff's shop, they complain of two other matters: (1) That plaintiff's shop is kept open later than union shops, and (2) That plaintiff in a window of his shop has displayed a misleading card which, defendants claim, indicates it is a union shop. However, the record discloses plaintiff assured the trial court that each of such alleged objectionable practices would be discontinued.

On the filing of the bill an order was issued to show cause why a temporary injunction should not issue as prayed in the bill of complaint. A hearing was had on the order to show cause. Only a little and quite inconsequential testimony of a single witness produced by defendants was taken. There was lengthy colloquy between the court and counsel, accompanied by quite useless and conflicting statements and claims of counsel for the respective parties.

Under the record before us, it appears beyond cavil that when trial on the merits is had the issue will be: Should the...