Robison v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees, Local No. 782, of Boise, Idaho

• Decision Date: 28 April 1922
• Citation: 35 Idaho 418,207 P. 132
• Parties: W. P. ROBISON et al., Respondents, v. THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES LOCAL No. 782, of BOISE, IDAHO, et al., Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

207 P. 132

35 Idaho 418

W. P. ROBISON et al., Respondents, v. THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES LOCAL No. 782, of BOISE, IDAHO, et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

April 28, 1922

STRIKE-BOYCOTT-PICKETING.

1. A right to conduct a business, together with the incidental right to the goodwill thereof, is property.

2. Laborers for wages have a right to form unions for the purpose of improving their economic and social conditions. They have a right to strike in concert for a lawful purpose. In aid of a lawful strike they have a right to acquaint the public with the fact of its existence and the causes thereof and appeal, by peaceful persuasion, for public support and to request the public to withhold its patronage from the other party to the labor dispute.

3. A combination to strike to accomplish an object which is not regarded as lawful, or the use of illegal means in aid of a lawful strike, are wrongs for which the law affords a remedy.

4. The means employed in aid of a lawful strike must be free from falsehood, libel or defamation, and from physical violence coercion or moral intimidation.

5. The persuasion which the law permits in aid of a lawful strike is such as appeals to the judgment, reason or sentiment, and leaves the mind free to act of its own volition.

6. The constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech is not encroached upon by affording appropriate remedies for the abuse of the privilege of free speech.

7. The use of the words "Unfair to organized labor," if truthful, will not be enjoined. The use of expressions in aid of a strike which convey covert implications, calculated to defame, coerce or intimidate will be enjoined.

8. Posting of pickets on the street in front of a place of business does not of itself constitute a trespass upon the premises of the owner of the abutting property.

9. A lawful strike is not within the purview of sec. 18, art. 11 of the constitution, or secs. 2531 and 8512 of the Comp Stats., commonly known as the anti-trust provisions of the constitution and statutes of the state of Idaho.

10. Placing of pickets in the street, in front of or near to a restaurant, necessarily results in intimidation and coercion of prospective customers, and is properly enjoined.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hon. Charles F. Reddoch, Judge.

Action to enjoin picketing. Order issued granting injunction pendente lite. Modified.

Case remanded, with directions. No costs awarded.

Perky & Brinck, for Appellants.

Counsel for appellants do not attempt to segregate the authorities as to the different points involved, inasmuch as the authorities cited are in general a discussion of the whole subject involved in the case at bar, but for the convenience of the court, the authorities cited are here listed as follows: Foster v. Retail Clerks, 78 N.Y.S. 860, 39 Misc. 48; Vegalahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92, 57 Am. St. 443, 44 N.E. 1077, 35 L. R. A. 722; Iron Molders' Union v. Allis-Chalmers Co., 166 F. 45, 91 C. C. A. 631, 20 L. R. A., N. S., 315; Karges Furniture Co. v. Amalgamated Woodworkers, 165 Ind. 421, 6 Ann. Cas. 829, 75 N.E. 877, 2 L. R. A., N. S., 788; Meier v. Speer, 96 Ark. 618, 132 S.W. 988, 32 L. R. A., N. S., 793; Parkinson v. Building Trades Council, 154 Cal. 581, 16 Ann. Cas. 1165, 98 P. 1027, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 550; Steffis v. Motion Picture Operators, 136 Minn. 200, 161 N.W. 524; L. D. Wilcutt & Sons Co. v. Driscoll, 200 Mass. 110, 85 N.E. 901; 16 R. C. L. 450; P. Reardon, Inc., v. Caton, 178 N.Y.S. 713, 189 A.D. 501; Gill Engraving Co. v. Doerr, 214 F. 111; Gray v. Building Trades Council, 91 Minn. 171, 103 Am. St. 477, 1 Ann. Cas. 172, 97 N.W. 663, 63 L. R. A. 753; 18 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d ed., 87; Union P. R. Co. v. Ruef, 120 F. 102; Eddy, Combinations, 1031; Marx etc. Clothing Co. v. Watson, 168 Mo. 133, 90 Am. St. 440, 67 S.W. 391, 56 L. R. A. 951; Waddey v. Richmond Type Union, 105 Va. 188, 8 Ann. Cas. 798, 53 S.E. 273, 5 L. R. A., N. S., 793; Master Bldrs. v. Domascio, 16 Colo. App. 25, 63 P. 782; Christensen v. Kellog etc. Co., 110 Ill.App. 61; Cumberland Glass Mfg. Co. v. Glass Blowers, 59 N.J. Eq. 49, 46 A. 208; Natl. Pro. Assn. v. Cumming, 170 N.Y. 315, 88 Am. St. 648, 63 N.E. 369, 58 L. R. A. 135; Jones v. Van Winkle, 131 Ga. 336, 127 Am. St. 235, 62 S.E. 236, 17 L. R. A., N. S., 848; Tri-City Central Trades Council v. American Metal Foundries, 238 F. 728, 151 C. C. A. 578; Empire Theatre Co. v. Cloke, 53 Mont. 183, 163 P. 107, L. R. A. 1917E, 383; Ex parte Heffron (Mo.), 162 S.W. 652; Jones v. Van Winkle Machine Works, 131 Ga. 336, 127 Am. St. 235, 62 S.E. 236, 17 L. R. A., N. S., 848; Truax v. Bisbee Local, 19 Ariz. 379, 171 P. 121; White Mountain Freezer Co. v. Murphy, 78 N.H. 389, 101 A. 357; Martin on Labor Unions, secs. 22, 60, 62, 72; 5 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur., 2d ed., secs. 2025, 2028, 2033; Martin on Labor Unions, sec. 169; Krebs v. Rosenstein, 66 N.Y.S. 42, 31 Misc. 661; Levy v. Rosenstein, 66 N.Y.S. 101, 52 A.D. 443; Mills v. United States Printing Co., 91 N.Y.S. 185, 99 A.D. 605; Butterick Pub. Co. v. Typographical Union No. 6, 100 N.Y.S. 292, 50 Misc. 1; Sona v. Aluminum Castings Co., 214 F. 936, 131 C. C. A. 232; Goldfield Consol. Mines Co. v. Goldfield Miners' Union No. 220 (Nev.), 159 F. 500; Bittner v. West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Co., 214 F. 716, 131 C. C. A. 22; W. A. Fletcher & Co. v. Internatl. Assn. of Machinists (N. J. Eq.), 55 A. 1077.

Henry Z. Johnson and C. C. Cavanah, for Respondents.

"The cases all agree that the right to carry on a lawful business without obstruction is a property right, and one which the courts have never hesitated to protect, and its protection is a proper object for the granting an injunction." ( Local Union v. Stathakis, 135 Ark. 86, 205 S.W. 450, 6 A. L. R. 894; Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 35 S.Ct. 240, 59 L.Ed. 441; Cooley on Torts, p. 278; Gulf Bag Co. v. Suttner, 124 F. 468; Coeur d' Alene Cons. & Min. Co. v. Miners' Union, 51 F. 260, 19 L. R. A. 382; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220; Barr v. Essex Trades Council, 53 N.J. Eq. 101, 30 A. 881; Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 13 Ann. Cas. 764, 28 S.Ct. 277, 52 L.Ed. 436; St. Germain v. Bakery & Conf. Union, 97 Wash. 282, 166 P. 665.)

The continuous acts of the pickets constituted a continuing trespass and an intolerable nuisance which equity will enjoin. (Hughes v. Kansas City Motion Picture Operators, 282 Mo. 304, 221 S.W. 95; Moore v. Cooks & Waiters' Union, 39 Cal.App. 538, 179 P. 417; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. , 42 S.Ct. 124, 66 L.Ed. 132; Iverson v. Dilno, 44 Mont. 270, 119 P. 719; Baldwin Lumber Co. v. Local Brotherhood etc. (N. J. Eq.), 109 A. 147.)

The right of an abutting owner to protect his ingress and egress from the street, as against an unlawful obstruction where he is specially damaged thereby, is based on the fact that such right of access is a property right, interference with which constitutes sufficient ground to enable him to maintain a suit in equity. (Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., 120 F. 215, 57 C. C. A. 362, 61 L. R. A. 140; Adams v. Rivers, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 390.)

"The privilege of free movement on the streets and of free speech belong to defendants, but not to the extent that they might be exercised (for no legitimate purpose of defendants) in a place and manner and with the intention to annoy and damage plaintiffs." (Hughes v. Kansas City Motion Picture Operators, 282 Mo. 304, 221 S.W. 95; Iverson v. Dilno, supra; Beck v. Railway Teamsters Protective Union, 118 Mich. 497, 74 Am. St. 421, 77 N.W. 13, 42 L. R. A. 407.)

The picketing described in the complaint, and admitted by the defendants, is unlawful, and is not made lawful by the defendants' want of malice against the plaintiffs, or because of their purpose of economic betterment. (Webb v. Cooks & Waiters' Union (Tex. Civ.), 205 S.W. 465, 467; Local Union v. Stathakis, supra; Barr v. Essex Trades Council, supra; Parker Paint & Wallpaper Co. v. Local Union, 87 W.Va. 631, 16 A. L. R. 222, 105 S.E. 911; Seattle Brewing & Malting Co. v. Hansen, 144 F. 1011.

The picketing herein is "inherently illegal, for the reason it is inseparably associated with acts that are indisputably illegal, and that is the growing tendency of the weight of authority." (Rosenberg v. Retail Clerks' Assn., 39 Cal.App. 67, 177 P. 864; Barnes & Co. v. Chicago Typo. Union, 232 Ill. 424, 83 N.E. 940, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 1018; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Gee, 139 F. 582; Moore v. Cooks & Waiters' Union, supra; Schwartz & Jaffee v. Hillman, 189 N.Y.S. 21, 115 Misc. 61; Union P. R. Co. v. Ruef, 120 F. 102; Frank v. Herold, 63 N.J. Eq. 443, 52 A. 152; Franklin Union v. People, 220 Ill. 355, 110 Am. St. 248, 77 N.E. 176, 4 L. R. A., N. S., 1001; Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 38 S.Ct. 65; Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92, 57 Am. St. 443, 44 N.E. 1077, 35 L. R. A. 722; Truax v. Corrigan, supra; Kueffel & Esser v. International Assn. of Machinists (N. J. Eq.), 116 A. 9; Campbell v. Motion Picture etc. Operators Union (Minn.), 186 N.W. 781; Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443, 16 A. L. R. 196, 41 S.Ct. 172, 65 L.Ed. 349; American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City C. T. Council, 257 U.S. , 42 S.Ct. 72, 66 L.Ed. 103.)

RICE, C. J. Budge, McCarthy, Dunn and Lee, JJ., concur.

OPINION

RICE, C. J.

Respondents are proprietors of certain restaurants in Boise. The appellants are members and officers of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Local No. 782 of Boise, which is a voluntary unincorporated association, or labor union.

In their complaint, respondents allege:

"That the defendants did on or about the twentieth day of March 1920, order all of the employees of the plaintiffs then belonging to the said The Hotel...