Steffes v. Motion Picture Mach. Operators' Union, 20153[273].

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Writing for the Court: HALLAM
• Citation: 136 Minn. 200,161 N.W. 524
• Parties: STEFFES v. MOTION PICTURE MACH. OPERATORS' UNION et al.
• Docket Number: No. 20153[273].,20153[273].
• Decision Date: 23 February 1917

136 Minn. 200

161 N.W. 524

STEFFES

v.MOTION PICTURE MACH. OPERATORS' UNION et al.

No. 20153[273].

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 23, 1917.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Joseph W. Molyneaux, Judge.

Action for an injunction by Albert Steffes against the Motion Picture Machine Operators' Union and others. Injunction denied, and plaintiff appeals. Order affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Where the trial court on conflicting pleadings and affidavits denies a temporary injunction, this court on appeal from such an order must assume a state of facts as favorable to the defendants as the showing made by them will sustain.

The term ‘unfair’ as used by organized labor means that the person so designated is unfriendly to organized labor or refuses to recognize its rules and regulations.

A notification to customers or prospective customers that an employer of labor is unfair may portend a threat or intimidation. In such case it constitutes a boycott and is unlawful, but a mere notification that an employer is unfair, without more, is not unlawful.

Display of an ‘unfair’ placard on the public street near plaintiff's place of business is not unlawful if there be no obstruction to traffic or of access to plaintiff's place of business and no threat, intimidation or other unlawful interference. Mead & Bryngelson, of Minneapolis (James D. Shearer and L. B. Byard, both of Minneapolis, of counsel), for appellant.

Fifield & Finney, of Minneapolis, for respondents.

HALLAM, J.

[1] 1. The facts in this case are very much in dispute. Plaintiff asked for a temporary injunction on a verified complaint and supporting affidavits. He was met by a verified answer and answering affidavits. The court without making findings denied the injunction. We must assume a state of facts as favorable to the defendants as the showing made by defendants will sustain. From defendants' showing the following facts appear:

Plaintiff operates a motion picture theater on Twentieth avenue north in Minneapolis. He employs one Supple as operator of his motion picture machine. A trade union of motion picture machine operators, seeking to enlarge the possibilities of the organization, besought plaintiff to enter into an agreement to hire a union operator at union wages and further urged that Supple join the union. To do so he would be obliged to enter as a ‘permit man,’ and after a year he would become a full member. During this year he would be subject to be displaced by some union member should there be one unemployed, but this was not probable. While these negotiations were in progress plaintiff remodeled his theater and in that work it was claimed he employed nonunion men though union labor was offered. The result of all their negotiations was that plaintiff finally informed defendants that he would not employ any union man as operator and that if Supple joined the union he would be discharged. Defendants' representative then told plaintiff the union would feel obliged to ‘banner his place as unfair to organized labor.’ Plaintiff replied that was just the thing he wanted done, that when it was done before it helped his business and he was glad it was about to start again. Thereupon defendants hired one Clausen to carry back and forth on the street in front of the theater a banner on which was printed, ‘This theater is unfair to organized labor.’ Many other acts are charged, some of them distinctly unlawful, but they are all denied and in view of the order made by the trial court we must assume that he found such charges made by plaintiff, and denied by defendants, not proven.

2. The term ‘unfair’ as used by organized labor has come to have a meaning well understood. It means that the person so designated is unfriendly to organized labor or that he refuses to recognize its rules and regulations. It charges no moral shortcoming and no want of business capacity or integrity. As applied to a theater it signifies nothing as to the merits of its performances. As a rule one man has no right to interfere in the business affairs of another, but if his act in so doing is in pursuit of a just purpose to further his own interests he may be justified in so doing, and so long as he does not act maliciously and does not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with the rights of his neighbor he cannot be charged with actional wrong. Grant v. St. Paul Building Trades Council, 161 N. W. 520, filed herewith.

3. In Gray v. Building Trades Council, 91 Minn. 171, 97 N. W. 663,...