Purcell v. J.B. & B. Int. Union of Am.

• Decision Date: 29 May 1939
• Docket Number: No. 19262.,19262.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: ROSE PURCELL, DOING BUSINESS AS THE ISIS BEAUTY SHOP, APPELLANT, v. JOURNEYMEN BARBERS & BEAUTICIANS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 192-A, A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

133 S.W.2d 662

ROSE PURCELL, DOING BUSINESS AS THE ISIS BEAUTY SHOP, APPELLANT, v. JOURNEYMEN BARBERS & BEAUTICIANS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 192-A, A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

No. 19262.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

May 29, 1939.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County. — Hon. Brown Harris, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Ralph S. Latshaw, Frank W. Aylward and Ralph S. Latshaw, Jr., for appellant.

(1) Defendants unlawfully conspired to force and coerce appellant to join the Hairdressers' Guild and to accede to demands of officers, managers and organizers of the Beauticians Union, Local 192-A, defendants' conduct thereby establishing a nuisance to plaintiff's irreparable damage. The trial court erred in refusing to grant the permanent injunction prayed for in appellant's petition. Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle, 215 Mo. 421, 114 S.W. 997, citing: Jersey City v. Cassidy, 63 N.J. Eq. 759, 53 Atl. 230; Addison, Torts, 7; Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 116, 21 L. Ed. 394; Casey v. Cincinnati Typographical Union (C.C.), 45 Fed. 135, 12 L.R.A. 193; Milwaukee M. & B. Ass'n v. Niezerowski, 95 Wis. 129, 70 N.W. 166, 37 L.R.A. 127, 60 Am. St. Rep. 97; Joe Dan Market, Inc., v. Wentz et al., 20 S.W. (2d) 567, 223 Mo. App. 772; Hughes v. Kansas City Motion Picture M.O. Local No. 170, 221 S.W. 95, 282 Mo. App. 304; Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Saxey et al., 32 S.W. 1106, 131 Mo. 212; Clarkson v. Laiblan et al., 178 Mo. App. 708, 161 S.W. 660, citing; State v. Dalton & Fay, 134 Mo. App. 517, 114 S.W. 1132; Ellis v. Journeymen Barbers Int. Union, 194 Iowa, 1179, 191 N.W. 111; Browning v. Browning, 226 Mo. App. 322, 41 S.W. (2d) 860, l.c. 868; Belt v. Belt, 224 Mo. App. 780, 288 S.W. 100, l.c. 107; Kennish v. Safford, 193 Mo. App. 362, 184 S.W. 923, l.c. 926; Allen v. Forsythe, 160 Mo. App. 262, 142 S.W. 820, l.c. 823; Medich v. Stippec et al., 335 Mo. 796, 73 S.W. (2d) 998, l.c. 1002; Mosby v. Commission Co., 91 Mo. App. 500, l.c. 507; The Modern Law of Labor Unions — Martin — sec. 25, p. 26; sec. 25, p. 27; sec. 57, p. 82; sec. 99, p. 103; sec. 69, p. 105; sec. 164, p. 231; sec. 167, p. 232; sec. 170, p. 237 (1910); 12 C.J., sec. 55, p. 570; 32 C.J., sec. 226, p. 165; citing; Bausch Machine Tool Co. v. Hill, 231 Mass. 30, 120 N.W. 188; sec. 227, pp. 165. (2) The uncontradicted and admitted evidence clearly shows that the defendants were engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix minimum prices for beauty work and to force this appellant and other beauty shop owners to join the Hairdressers' Guild and to agree to the minimum prices so fixed by them. Chap. 47, Vol. II, R.S. of Mo., 1929, secs. 8701, 8702, 8703, 8705, 8712; Froelich v. Musicians Mut. Benefit Ass'n, 93 Mo. App. 383; citing; State v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 52 S.W. 595, 152 Mo. 43; Moore v. Bennett, 140 Ill. 69; State ex rel. Crow v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 152 Mo. 43, 52 S.W. 595, l.c. 606-607, citing: State v. Talbot, 123 Mo. 69, 27 S.W. 366; State v. Bland, 144 Mo. 534, 46 S.W. 440; U.S. v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 54 U.S. App. 764, 29 C.C.A. 162, 85 Fed. 293; State ex rel. Barrett, Atty. Gen., v. Carondelet Planing Mill Co. et al., 309 Mo. 353, 274 S.W. 780, citing; State ex rel. Barrett v. Boeckeler Lumber Co., 301 Mo. 445, 256 S.W. 175, l.c. 543; State ex inf. v. International Harvester Co., 237 Mo. 369, 141 S.W. 672; Reisenbichler v. Marquette Cement Co. (Mo.), 108 S.W. (2d) 343, citing; Dietrich v. Cape Brewery & Ice Co., 315 Mo. 507, 286 S.W. 38, l.c. 43 (14); Heim Brewing Co. v. Belinder, 97 Mo. App. 64, 71 S.W. 691; State ex rel. v. People's Ice Co., 246 Mo. 168, 221, 151 S.W. 101; State ex inf. v. Armour Packing Co., 265 Mo. 121, 148, 176 S.W. 382; State ex rel. Barrett v. Boeckeler Lumber Co., 301 Mo. 445, l.c. 524, 525, 256 S.W. 175; State ex inf. Major v. Arkansas Lumber Co., 260 Mo. 212, l.c. 315, 169 S.W. 145; Ellis v. Journeymen Barbers Int. Union, 191 N.W. 111, 194 Iowa, 1179, and cases there cited; State ex rel. Star Publishing Co. v. Associated Press 159 Mo. 410, 60 S.W. 91; Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle, 114 S.W. 997, 215 Mo. 421. (3) (a) The trial court erred in admitting any evidence concerning a plant or private union. (b) The trial court erred in admitting any evidence concerning the prices paid for materials that go to make up permanent waves and the actual cost thereof to the shop owners. Balston-Stillwater K. Co. v. Naional Labor R. Board, 98 Fed. (2d) No. 5, 758, l.c. 762. (4) The trial court erred in refusing to allow appellant to prove that defendants were in a conspiracy to prevent broken glass from being replaced in a place that was being picketed by union labor. State ex rel. Crow v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 152 Mo. 43, 52 S.W. 595, l.c. 606-607; Mosby v. Commission Co., 91 Mo. App. 500, l.c. 507; State v. Richetti, 119 S.W. (2d) No. 3, p. 330, l.c. 342; citing: 16 C.J., sec. 1307, p. 656.

Clif Langsdale and Roy W. Rucker for respondents.

The court having found that the picketing of plaintiff's beauty shop was peaceful, and not accompanied by unlawful acts, it follows that the judgment was for the right party. Unions have the right to peacefully picket an employer for the purpose of protecting the interests of their members. Senn v. Tile Layers Protective Union, 57 Sup. Ct. Rep. 857, 81 Law Ed. 829, 834; American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184, 209; Joe Dan Market, Inc., v. Wentz, 223 Mo. App. 772, 20 S.W. (2d) 547, 569; St. Louis v. Gloner, 210 Mo. 502. The policy of the United States as declared in the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the National Labor Relations Act.

KEMP, J.

This is a suit in equity, wherein plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendants from picketing her business known as the Isis Beauty Shop located at 1019 East Thirty-First Street, Kansas City, Missouri, and from committing certain alleged unlawful acts in connection therewith. Upon a trial of the case on the merits, the trial court made a general finding denying to plaintiff the relief prayed for and dismissing plaintiff's petition. The specific grounds on which this decree was based do not appear inasmuch as the court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law.

The injunctive relief sought is based upon the allegations of the petition to the effect that the Journeymen Barbers and Beauticians International Union of America, Local 192-A, and the Hairdressers Guild, an organization of beauty shop owners, and various members or sympathizers of said organizations, have threatened and attempted to intimidate plaintiff by telling her that her life was not safe and that her property would be destroyed unless she complied with the requests of the defendants and the defendant associations, "and that the defendants since the 6th day of December, 1937, have placed persons who are either members of the defendant associations or associated therewith, or sympathizers thereof, in groups in and about plaintiff's premises and in front thereof, and have placed said members or associates or sympathizers as pickets in front of plaintiff's place of business, which persons carry about their person and display to the public signs and placards to the effect that plaintiff employs non-union operators and is opposed to unions and organized labor, and circulate rumors that plaintiff is unfair to organized labor."

It is further alleged that defendants (including both the associations and a number of individuals who are members of one or the other of said associations and some non-members who were acting as pickets), their associates and sympathizers, have threatened to destroy plaintiff's said property and are interfering with plaintiff's business, and refuse to permit supplies and equipment to be delivered to plaintiff at her place of business, and on two occasions, to-wit, on October 29, 1937, and on November 12, 1937, windows in her place of business were broken and shattered; that the defendants "assemble in large crowds in and about plaintiff's place of business and loiter and congregate and pace back and forth in front of plaintiff's place of business, and that said pickets accost, coerce, and threaten plaintiff and plaintiff's patrons and other persons who desire to patronize plaintiff at her place of business;" that the plaintiff has repeatedly remonstrated with defendants and requested them to remove and recall said pickets from in front of and about plaintiff's premises and to cease to intimidate and threaten her and her patrons and customers and to "cease and desist from coercion and from circulating false rumors and reports regarding the status of her employees, and of interfering with the operation of her place of business, and that the defendants and each of them have refused so to do, and still continue to commit said unlawful, unwarranted, and illegal acts and actions to the great damage and irreparable loss of plaintiff."

It is further alleged that none of the defendants has ever been employed by plaintiff or has ever been discharged from employment by plaintiff, and that none of the members of the Journeymen Barbers and Beauticians International Union of America, Local 192-A, has ever been discharged from employment by plaintiff.

The petition further alleges that unless the defendant associations and the individual defendants are enjoined from continuing to threaten and intimidate plaintiff and from harassing and coercing plaintiff's patrons, and "from continuing to circulate false rumors and reports to the effect that plaintiff is a non-union shop and has labor difficulties, and from picketing, and unlawful acts of violence, and that she is opposed to unions and organized labor, she will suffer great loss and damages, and will be forced to close her place of business, depriving her of her right to work and earn a livelihood."

These allegations are followed by a prayer that injunction issue against the defendants ordering them to cease from interfering with plaintif...