St. Germain v. Bakery and Confectionery Workers' Union, No. 9, of Seattle

• Decision Date: 17 July 1917
• Docket Number: 13894.
• Citation: 97 Wash. 282,166 P. 665
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: ST. GERMAIN et ux. v. BAKERY AND CONFECTIONERY WORKERS' UNION, NO. 9, OF SEATTLE, et al.

166 P. 665

97 Wash. 282

ST. GERMAIN et ux. v. BAKERY AND CONFECTIONERY WORKERS' UNION, NO. 9, OF SEATTLE, et al.

No. 13894.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

July 17, 1917

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman, Judge.

Action by N.H. St. Germain and wife against the Bakery and Confectionery Workers' Union, No. 9, of Seattle, Wash and others. From the judgment which granted only part of the relief prayed, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

Holcomb J., dissenting.

Halverstadt & Clarke and Piles & Halverstadt, all of Seattle, for appellants.

Thomas Byron MacMahon and Preston & Thorgrimson, all of Seattle, for respondents.

MOUNT J.

This action was brought to enjoin the defendants from picketing in front of the plaintiffs' places of business in the city of Seattle, and from annoying and harassing the plaintiffs' customers as they were entering or leaving the plaintiffs' places of business, and for damages. The case was tried to the court. No findings of fact were made but the court, at the conclusion of the trial, entered a decree as follows:

'It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that Percy Wood William T. McGuerin, T. H. Bolton, and Guida Axtheim, individually and as associates under the name and style of Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union, No. 9, of Seattle, Washington, and all persons associated with said individuals as said Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union No. ___ of Seattle, Washington, and Harry Mitchell, Frank Guilke, and William H. Fraser, individually and associated together under the name and style of Cooks' and Assistants' Union, Local No. 33, and all persons associated with them under such name, and Edward Schutt, and their and each of their agents and employés, be and they hereby are enjoined and restrained from congregating in front of plaintiffs' place of business at No. 409 Pike street and No. 1515-1517 Pike place, each in the city of Seattle, King county, Washington, from talking to any one while in front of either of plaintiffs' said places of business in any way reflecting on plaintiffs' business or on the manner of conducting the same, from saying anything while in front of either of plaintiffs' said places of business concerning plaintiffs' employing members of the Japanese race or Chinamen, from stating that plaintiffs' business is conducted in a dirty manner, from the use of the word 'scab' or 'scabs' while in front of plaintiffs' places of business, from laying hands upon or touching any one while in front of either of plaintiffs' said places of business, with intent to in any way cause such person not to trade with or enter the said stores of plaintiffs. But such injunction shall not run against said unions as entities.

'It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that said defendants may, if they desire, place and maintain two pickets in front of each of plaintiffs' said places of business, and that said pickets may wear a badge or scarf having on the same the words, 'St. Germain's Bakeries and Restaurants Unfair to Organized Labor,' or words to that effect, but nothing more; that said pickets at plaintiffs' store No. 409 Pike street shall walk on the outer curb of the sidewalk, and at plaintiffs' place of business at No. 1515-1517 Pike place shall walk in the center of the sidewalk, and if the crowds in front of plaintiffs' said places of business are such at any time that said pickets cannot walk in the middle of the sidewalk, they shall cease picketing until conditions are such that they can walk in the middle of the sidewalk.

'It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that said defendants may use cards such as plaintiffs' Exhibit A, introduced in evidence in this cause, but they are perpetually enjoined and restrained from throwing or leaving any of them in plaintiffs' said places of business.

'It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that plaintiffs do have and recover their costs and disbursements herein to be taxed of and from Percy Wood, William T. McGuerin, and Guida Axtheim, individually, and of each of them, and of Harry Mitchell, Frank Guilke, and William H. Fraser, individually, and of each of them, and of Edward Schutt.'

The cards referred to in this decree were cards about three inches square, and contained the words:

'St. Germain Bakeries, Public Market and 409 Pike St., Unfair to Organized Labor.' The plaintiffs have appealed from all that part of the decree beginning with, and following, the words, in the first paragraph,

'But such injunction shall not run against said unions as entities.'

There is no material dispute in the facts, which are, in substance, as follows:

The respondent unions are voluntary associations of bakers and cooks, respectively. The respondents Wood and McGuerin are president and business agent, respectively, of the respondent Bakers' Union, and members of it. Respondents Bolton and Axtheim are members of that union. The respondents Mitchell, Guilke, and Fraser are president, business agent, and secretary, respectively, of the Cooks' Union. The respondent Schutt does not belong to either union, but was paid for his participation in picketing the appellants' places of business. The appellants have been engaged in the bakery and dairy lunch business in Seattle for about 16 years. They had two stores in the city of Seattle, one at No. 409 Pike street, and the other in the Pike place market. The store in the Pike place market fronts on one of the most crowded streets in the city of Seattle. The appellants, prior to April 29, 1916, employed only union bakers. They were then employing a cook by the name of Paulsen, who was a member of the Cooks' Union, but was delinquent in his dues. In the early part of April, 1916, Mr. McGuerin and Mr.Guilke, representing their respective unions, called upon the appellants and damanded that they employ only union men, and stated that, if the appellants did not discharge Mr. Paulsen, the union bakers in their stores would be called out. The appellants refused to comply with this request, the union bakers and cooks left the employment of the appellants, and thereupon pickets were stationed in front of both stores of the appellants. These pickets wore white coats, with the words, 'St. Germain's Bakery Employs Non-Union Labor,' on the front, and, on the back of these coats appeared the words, in black letters, 'Low Wages, Long Hours, Seven Days Per Week.'

These pickets went on duty about 11:30 o'clock in the morning, and continued until the stores were closed in the evening. At the beginning, the pickets marched back and forth directly in front of the doors of the places of business of the appellants. There was evidence to the effect that they jostled customers entering and leaving the stores. Upon Saturday, May 6th, pickets to the number of 40 or 50 congregated in front of the Pike place store, and, while the street was badly crowded, packed the recesses in which the doors were set, and prevented customers from entering the store. Upon several occasions, cards about three inches square, with the words, 'St. Germain's Bakeries Unfair to Organized Labor,' were scattered upon the street and in the store. Prospective purchasers, desiring to enter the store, were called 'scabs.' Prospective purchasers, entering and leaving the store, jostled certain of the picketers. Policemen were called upon two different occasions to prevent trouble. One arrest was made, but the person arrested was not prosecuted.

It is insisted by counsel for the respondents that, upon the trial of the case, the rightfulness, wrongfulness, or unlawfulness of the strike was not entered into, and it is also insisted that the case was tried upon the assumption that the respondents were justified in calling the strike, and that the only question presented to the lower court, and the only one which should be presented here, is whether the acts of the respondents, following the strike, and while they were in such combination, were such as to entitle the appellants to equitable relief. We shall assume, for the purpose of this case, that the respondents were justified in calling the strike. The reason for the strike is material only as tending to show the animus of the respondents in picketing the places of business of the appellants.

The question, then, for decision, is, as stated by counsel for the respondents: Were the acts of the respondents, in picketing the places of business of the appellants, justified in law, and are the appellants remediless to restrain picketing by the respondents in the manner provided for by the part of the decree appealed from, or for any purpose? The decisions upon this question are not altogether in harmony. The rule is generally stated (24 Cyc. p. 834) as follows:

'While it has been held that the mere stationing of persons near the premises of another for the mere purpose of observing and obtaining information, for the purpose of conveying information to persons seeking or willing to receive the same, or for the purpose of using orderly and peaceful persuasion with those willing to listen, does not in itself constitute intimidation, if done in a peaceful manner, the rule has been repeatedly laid down that the keeping of patrols in front of or about the premises of the employer, accompanied by violence or any manner of coercion to prevent others from entering into or remaining in his service, will be enjoined. * * * The doctrine that there may be a moral intimidation which is illegal, announced by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, was among the first judicial steps taken in this country toward overturning the rule permitting peaceable picketing laid down in the first clause of this paragraph, and was a forerunner of the later

...