Ossey v. Retail Clerks' Union

• Decision Date: 05 October 1927
• Docket Number: Nos. 17347-17355.,s. 17347-17355.
• Citation: 326 Ill. 405,158 N.E. 162
• Parties: OSSEY et al. v. RETAIL CLERKS' UNION et al. PEOPLE v. WINNICK.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

326 Ill. 405

158 N.E. 162

OSSEY et al.

v.RETAIL CLERKS' UNION et al.

PEOPLE

v.WINNICK.

Nos. 17347-17355.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 22, 1927.

Rehearing Denied with Modification Oct. 5, 1927.

Injunction suit by Isidore Ossey and another, partners doing business as the Ossey Bros. Department Store, against the Retail Clerks' Union and others.Injunction granted.From an order of the superior court, adjudging Harry Winnick guilty of contempt, he appeals direct to the Supreme Court.With this case were consolidated the following cases: 17348, against Dora Entin; 17349, against Sam Waller; 17350, against Frank Boskey; 17351, against Morris Segal; 17352, against Sam Pessis; 17353, against Sidney Goldblatt; 17354, against Sam Krakow; 17355, against Tom McGregor.Appeals considered together.

Orders affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Denis E. Sullivan, judge.

William E. Rodriguez, of Chicago (Angus Kerr, John M. Humphrey, and Hamlin K. Buchman, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.

Schoenbrod & Rosengard, of Chicago (Myer N. Rosengard, Edward A. Zimmerman, and Amos C. Miller, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

Colin C. H. Fyffe, of Chicago, amicus curiae.

DE YOUNG, J.

On April 15, 1924, Isidore Ossey and Meyer Ossey, partners doing business as Ossey Bros. Department Store, filed in the superior court of Cook county a verified bill for an injunction against the Retail Clerks' Union, Local 195 of that union, the agents, officers, managers, representatives, and members of the union and its local, and Harry Winnickand Abe Cooper, to restrain, among other things, interference with the complainants' property, business, and customers in the prosecution of a strike called by the first-named defendant.

The bill alleges that the complainants conduct two retail stores in the city of Chicago, one at 1325-1333 South Halsted street, and the other at 1235 South Halsted street, at both of which they sell men's and women's clothing and accessories; that the complainants have been engaged in that business for a considerable period, and have established a good will of great value; that they carry a stock of merchandise worth from $100,000 to $150,000; that they own the buildings which they occupy and that their investment in merchandise, fixtures, and buildings exceeds $400,000; that they employ sales persons and others, irrespective of whether they belong to a union or not; that the Retail Clerks' Union is a voluntary association, composed of many persons whose names are unknown, and who are too numerous to sue; that the individual defendants named in the bill are affiliated with that union and its Local 195 as members, directors, and officers; that prior to January 1, 1924, the union decided to organize the retail clerks of the city of Chicago and compel the owners of retail stores in that city, and particularly in the vicinity of the complainants' places of business, to operate as union or closed shops; that few, if any, of the complainants' employees desired to join the union; that, failing to accomplish its purposes by peaceable means, the union on April 12, 1924, called a strike of the clerks employed by the complainants, and for the purpose of making the strike effective the union and its local caused the complainants' places of business to be picketed by groups of from 10 to 25 persons each; that the pickets watched all persons who entered and left the complainants' buildings, and questioned them; that the pickets told the complainants' employees and applicants for employment that a strike was in progress, and that they would not be permitted to continue in the service of the complainants, or to enter their places of business; that the pickets stopped and accosted all persons in or about the complainants' stores, and prohibited them from buying merchandise; that the pickets used vile names, annoyed, humiliated, and intimidated the complainants' employees and applicants for employment, and put them in fear of assault or molestation if they disregarded the warnings given them; and that the picketing has continued since it was instituted.

There follow in the bill allegations of specific acts by the pickets, such as shouting their demands, forcing satisfied employees to quit work through fear, creating disturbances in and about the complainants' places of business, blockading the doors thereto, preventing persons from going in and out and threatening them with physical injuries, and threatening the complainants with the destruction of their buildings and the ruination of their business.It is finally charged that the defendants are insolvent, and the complainants have no adequate remedy at law, and that the wrongful acts and interferences specified will continue, to the irreparable damage of the complainants, unless the defendants be enjoined.

Upon application by the complainants, based on the bill and certain affidavits, and pursuant to notice, Judge Charles M. Foell, on April 16, 1924, granted a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants(a) from picketing or maintaining any picket or pickets at or near any of the buildings in which the complainants operate their businesses; (b) from following, stopping involuntarily, assaulting, beating, threatening, menacing, intimidating, harassing, molesting, or interfering with the complainants, or any person employed by them, or who seeks to enter their employment, or who does or seeks to do business with them; (c) from calling upon or talking to any employee of the complainants against the manifest will of such employee; (d) from applying to any employee of the complainants any profane, insulting, humiliating, or indecent epithet, name, term, or language; (e) from soliciting or inducing any person employed by the complainants to quit such employment; (f) from molesting, injuring, trespassing upon, or interfering with any property owned, operated, or used by the complainants, or by any person employed by, or who does or seeks to do business with, the complainants; and (g) from threatening or participating in the doing of any of the things forbidden.

On the day the preliminary injunction was granted, the appearance of the union, its local, Winnick, and Cooper was entered.No further action was taken in the suit until October 19, 1925, when a verified petition by Isidore Ossey, one of the complainants, was filed.The petition set forth that the preliminary injunction was still in force and unmodified, and that acts of reprisals had been committed since its issuance; that on the 17th day of October Winnick and several other persons, carrying signs reading, ‘Strike on, Clerks Stay Away, This Store Unfair,’ paraded upon the sidewalks in front of and adjacent to the complainants' premises, and that certain persons, who were given fictitious names in the petition because their true names were unknown, but whom the petitioner could point out, continued to act as pickets, with full knowledge and in direct violation of the injunction.The prayer of the petition was that the pickets be directed to show cause why they should not be attached for contempt of court.Notice of the filing of this petition was served upon counsel for the defendants.

The rule to show cause was entered by Judge Denis E. Sullivan and made returnable on October 26, 1925.Before that day the solicitors for the defendants withdrew their appearance and other counsel were substituted.Certified copies of the rule to show cause were served upon the pickets, and for their failure to answer the petition their default were entered on the return day, October 26, 1925, and on the same day the bill of complaint was taken as confessed by the defendants thereto.On that day, also, a verified supplemental petition by Isidore Ossey was filed, which, after setting forth the true names of the pickets, who had been given fictitious names in the earlier petition, charged that they continued the picketing of the complainants' places of business and the carrying of signs as before; that they had threatened prospective customers and others with violence, and were guilty of other acts of intimidation; and that Winnick had committed an assault upon one of the complainants.Two days later a motion was made in behalf of Winnick, Sidney Goldblatt, Frank Boskey, Sam Waller, Sam Krakow, Morris Segal, Sam Pessis, Dora Entin, and Tom McGregor to vacate the order of default theretofore entered, and to permit them to file their answers to the rule to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt.

The motion was granted, and on November 4, 1925, each of the respondents filed an answer, admitting that he or she peacefully picketed the complainants' places of business, but that such picketing was incidental to a strike which had arisen over a dispute between the complainants and the Retail Clerks' Union.The other allegations of the petition were denied.The answer of Winnick further averred that he was assaulted by Isidore Ossey on October 21, 1925, in consequence of which he was compelled to go to a hospital for treatment.On motion, the defaults of the defendants to the bill of complaint were set aside, and they filed a joint and several answer, denying the material allegations of the bill, but admitting that a general strike of the complainants' employees had been called on April 12, 1924, and that the places of business of the complainants had been picketed by groups of persons.Upon the assurance of the respondents' counsel, made in open court on October 27, that the respondents would appear upon the hearing on the original petition, the court set that hearing on the 17th day of November.On October 29, 1925, the respondents, nine in number, filed a general and special demurrer to the supplemental petition of the complainants, and the same respondents on that day petitioned for a change of venue of the cause.Six days later a change of venue was denied.

After the hearing, upon which...