Silkworth v. Labor

• Decision Date: 11 October 1944
• Docket Number: No. 65.,65.
• Citation: 16 N.W.2d 145,309 Mich. 746
• Parties: SILKWORTH et al. v. LOCAL NO. 575 OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

309 Mich. 746

16 N.W.2d 145

SILKWORTH et al.

v.LOCAL NO. 575 OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR et al.

No. 65.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 11, 1944.

Suit by Donald M. Silkworth and another, copartners and doing business under the firm name of D. M. Silkworth Oil Company, against Local No. 575 of the American Federation of Labor and others to enjoin defendants from picketing plaintiffs' places of business or from otherwise interfering with their business. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Before the Entire Bench.Appeal from Circuit Court, Washtenaw County, in Chancery; George W. Sample, Judge.

John P. Kirk, of Ypsilanti (Burke, Burke & Smith, of Ann Arbor, of counsel), for appellees.

Fitzgerald, Hogue, O'Leary & Reardon, of Detroit, and Don Lawrence, of Ypsilanti (George S. Fitzgerald and Paul B. Mayrand, both of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.

STARR, Justice.

Plaintiffs were engaged in the business of selling gasoline and fuel oil to dealers and consumers in Washtenaw county and adjacent territory. They maintained their office and principal place of business in Ypsilanti and bulk storage plants in Ypsilanti, Ann Arbor, and Dexter. They received their principal supply of such petroleum products from the Gulf Refining Company in Toledo, by transport trucks, the drivers of which were union members. Defendant Local No. 575 (herein referred to as the union) was a labor union and a part of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, commonly known as the Teamsters Union, which is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Defendant Flick was the business representative, and defendant Temple the assistant business representative, of said union, which maintained offices in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

On December 22, 1942, plaintiffs filed bill of complaint alleging, in substance, that there was no labor dispute between them and their truck drivers, who were not union members; that defendants had demanded that they place all their drivers in the union by paying their initiation fees of $27.50 each; and that when they refused to pay such fees, defendants established a picket line at their bulk storage plant in Ypsilanti. A temporary injunction was issued restraining defendants from picketing and from interfering with plaintiffs' business. Defendants answered said bill, denying that they had demanded payment by plaintiffs of union initiation fees for their drivers and that they had unlawfully interfered with plaintiffs' business. Defendants alleged that a labor dispute was involved and that they were legally entitled to picket plaintiffs' storage plant in the furtherance of legitimate union aims and activities. It is admitted that there was no strike, no physical violence, and that the picketing was peaceful.

The matter was brought on for hearing and testimony taken. The trial court held that there was ‘no bona fide labor dispute existing between plaintiffs and any person or persons or any labor organization of any kind,’ and that defendants' demand for payment of initiation fees by plaintiffs was ‘illegal, unjust and extortionate.’ On April 26, 1943, a decree was entered which enjoined defendants from picketing plaintiffs' places of business and from in any manner interfering with their business or with the delivery to them of petroleum products. Defendants appeal from such decree. This being a chancery case, we review the same de novo.

The testimony, much of which is in conflict, reasonably establishes the following facts: Plaintiffs were the largest distributors of petroleum products in Washtenaw county. They owned their trucks and employed eight or more drivers in making deliveries to their customers. In the fall of 1942 defendant union put on a campaign to organize the truck drivers in the petroleum industry in Ypsilanti. Some drivers for the Standard Oil Company and for other distributors in that community joined the union. Defendants Flick and Temple solicited plaintiffs' drivers, but they were not willing to join unless plaintiffs paid their initiation fees. It appears that prior to 1942 two of plaintiffs' drivers had belonged to defendant union and plaintiffs had paid their initiation fees. Defendant Flick testified that at the time of the picketing in question only one of plaintiffs' drivers belonged to the union and that his dues were in arrears. Plaintiffs testified that at such time none of their drivers belonged to the union.

In December, 1942, defendants insisted that plaintiffs place all their drivers in the union by paying their initiation fees, but plaintiffs refused, claiming that their drivers were satisfied and that there was no labor dispute. About December 20th defendants established a picket line at plaintiffs' Ypsilanti plant. There were only one or two men used in such picket line, and they carried banners which stated, ‘Unfair to organized labor, A. F. of L.’ The drivers of transport trucks delivering petroleum products to plaintiffs refused to cross such picket line, with the result that plaintiffs were deprived, at least partially, of their supply of such products. Picketing was continued until December 22d, when plaintiffs filed bill of complaint and the temporary injunction was issued, as above mentioned. To present the situation properly, it is necessary to quote briefly from the testimony. Plaintiff Donald Silkworth testified in part:

‘No demands were made * * * regarding labor, working conditions, wages, or anything of that character in December, 1942, and I have no knowledge of any labor dispute. * * *

‘I saw Mr. Temple (defendant) on or about December 18, 1942. I had a conversation with him in my office. He asked for a check for $27.50 apiece for each of our employees. * * * He said Mr. Flick (defendant) was waiting at his office for our answer and that if it was not favorable he (Mr. Flick), would stop our supplies from coming into our bulk plants. * * *

‘Mr. Temple told me he had not talked with our men lately about joining the union, and that they had made no request to join; he doubted if any of our men would join the union.’

Plaintiff Wesley Silkworth testified in part as follows:

‘Mr. Temple asked for the initiation fee of $27.50 (in) the local teamsters' union for each of our truck drivers. * * * He said that if the money was not forthcoming they would stop transports from coming into the plant. * * *

‘He (Flick) said * * * as we didn't see fit to play ball with them that they were going to be tough with us, and that we could settle the whole thing for a few dollars and wouldn't have any more trouble about it. * * *

‘There was no labor dispute between our firm and our employees at any time. * * *

‘I told Mr. Temple in my office that I didn't think the men wanted to belong to the union, and he said he was quite positive that they didn't want to belong to the union. I wouldn't settle with Mr. Flick.’

Defendant Temple testified in part as follows:

‘Q. What was the purpose of the union in signing up these drivers? What is your program? * * *

‘A. If we can get them all, we can better working conditions and get them more money. * * *

‘Q. Tell what the conversation was with Mr. Silkworth. * * *

‘A. I told him that I had talked to his drivers and none of them was willing to pay the initiation fee into the union, but they didn't have any objection to going in the union * * * if the Silkworth Company would pay the initiation fee, and they had done it on previous occasions, so I couldn't see any reason why they wouldn't do it again. * * * He didn't want to sign them up and * * * I told him that his trucks were going on union jobs and that the other companies were kicking about it, because a non-union company was getting union business, and that I wanted his trucks for that reason, too. He said, ‘If I was to give you the trucks that are going on the union business, would that be all right?’ And I said ‘No. I want them all.’ * * *

‘Donald Silkworth said that he thought four of them would go into the union. * * *

‘He asked me what steps we would take if we couldn't get the men and I told him we would use a picket line and that would stop his gasoline. * * *

‘I never told the Silkworths we would shut off fuel oil; we told him that fuel oil could go through. We have no desire to stop fuel oil. * * *

‘We are only asking for the right to peacefully picket the place of business. We are willing to have the number of pickets designated by the court. * * *

‘I made efforts to organize the drivers before talking to Wesley. I interviewed the drivers without success. I didn't succeed in getting them to join the union. * * *

‘Q. So it was your purpose, because you didn't get the $27.50 for each of his drivers, * * * to shut off that supply and you knew that the only way you could do it would be by establishing a picket line? * * *

‘A. I didn't do it to get the $27.50. * * * ‘If we had the membership, and the $27.50, I wouldn't have been over there as a picket. But if we would have a picket line, the men probably would join without the Silkworths putting up the money. * * *

‘Q. You knew you couldn't get in (initiation fee) from the members, didn't you?

‘A. No. I could get it from the members, by a picket line.’

Defendant Flick testified in part as follows:

‘Q. You did contact some of the drivers. * * * And as a result of your contact, you didn't succeed in getting them to join your union, did you?

‘A. Well, I never asked them to. I talked to them about it but they said if they could get in * * * and it wouldn't cost them anything, they would gladly join the union. * * *

‘I was at the bulk plant December 20th. * * * Mr. Temple and I had arranged to establish a picket line to prove to the public that Silkworths were unfair to organized labor, and settle the labor dispute.

‘Q. What labor dispute?

‘A. Whether we should have all his members or part of them. * * * Some of them would say, ‘I have no objection...