Shinsky v. Tracey

• Citation: 226 Mass. 21,114 N.E. 957
• Parties: SHINSKY v. TRACEY et al.
• Decision Date: 26 January 1917
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

226 Mass. 21

114 N.E. 957

SHINSKY

v.TRACEY et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Jan. 26, 1917.

Appeal from Superior Court, Essex County; John D. McLaughlin, Judge.

Action by David Shinsky against Michael Tracey and others. From a decree of dismissal from the superior court, the plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and decree for plaintiff on the master's report ordered.

H. D. Linscott, of Lynn, for appellant.

Fredk. W. Mansfield, of Boston, for appellees.

BRALEY, J.

By becoming a member of the voluntary association known as ‘the United Shoe Workers of America’ the plaintiff engaged to be bound by its rules and subjected himself to its discipline. Correia v. Supreme Lodge of the Portuguese Fraternity of the United States of America, 218 Mass. 305, 105 N. E. 977;Carter v. Papineau, 222 Mass. 464, 111 N. E. 358, L. R. A. 1916D, 371. And the trial for alleged infraction of his obligations having been conducted as the master finds in accordance with the constitution, his expulsion is not reviewable and the bill as amended cannot be maintained under the first prayer, that the defendants be enjoined ‘from excluding him from access to their meetings and from membership.’ Spilman v. Supreme Council of the Home Circle, 157 Mass. 128, 31 N. E. 776. But upon severance his interest in the funds and property of the association ended, nor was he bound by the purposes, or amenable to the penal code of the body with which he had been affiliated, and in so far as the defendants were concerned his right to dispose of his own labor according to his own will had not been abrogated or restricted. McFadden v. Murphy, 149 Mass. 341, 21 N. E. 868;Plant v. Woods, 176 Mass. 492, 57 N. E. 1011,51 L. R. A. 339, 79 Am. St. Rep. 330;Berry v. Donovan, 188 Mass. 353, 74 N. E. 603,5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 899, 108 Am. St. Rep. 499,3 Ann. Cas. 738.

The first paragraph of the amended bill alleges and the answer admits, that when expelled he had been employed at lasting shoes in a local factory for nearly eight years; and the master reports that his work being satisfactory, he would have been retained except for the concerted action and conduct of the defendants. Their dominant purpose and controlling motive in procuring his discharge shortly after expulsion, as well as his discharge when he subsequently obtained employment with another shoe company which knew that he was no longer a member of the United Shoe Workers is found to have been, ‘to punish him and hold him up as an example before their membership,’ and the letters which they caused to be sent, were ‘to induce the plaintiff's employer in each instance to discharge’ him. The justification pleaded in the sixth paragraph of the answer is, that the plaintiff ‘had been a party to an agreement a copy of which is hereto annexed, and that the employers mentioned by him in his bill of complaint were also parties to said agreement; that the plaintiff violated his agreement and that if any action was taken by his employer or any other person which resulted in injury to him, * * * said action was the direct result of his own unlawful acts in violating and repudiating his agreement.’

It is unnecessary to pass on the validity of the agreement which is an instrument under seal, or to decide whether the manufacturers or the members of the association could have compelled specific performance, for in the light of the findings quoted this defence vanishes.

It is true that the fifth, and in this connection the important, article of this agreement or ‘Peace Pact’ entered into by the association when the plaintiff was a member and certain shoe manufacturers including his employers provides, that ‘* * * so long as these local unions are in a position to furnish help to do the work no other help may be employed.’ The defendants nevertheless were not seeking its protection for the economic purpose of furnishing work for their own members, where if this were not done there would not be enough work to keep them employed, which was the motive underlying the strike decided to be lawful in Minasian v. Osborne, 210 Mass. 250, 96 N. E. 1036,37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 179, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1299. Nor were they actuated by a desire to conserve and promote the welfare of the plaintiff and his employers through the offer of friendly advice. Tasker v. Stanley, 153 Mass. 148, 150, 26 N. E. 417,10 L. R. A. 468. But to preserve and to compel discipline in their own ranks they...