Truax v. Bisbee Local, No. 380

• Decision Date: 05 March 1918
• Docket Number: Civil 1544
• Citation: 171 P. 121,19 Ariz. 379
• Parties: WILLIAM TRUAX and WILLIAM A. TRUAX, Copartners Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of WILLIAM TRUAX, Appellants, v. BISBEE LOCAL No. 380, COOKS' AND WAITERS' UNION, JACK BARNETT et al., Appellees
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

171 P. 121

19 Ariz. 379

WILLIAM TRUAX and WILLIAM A. TRUAX, Copartners Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of WILLIAM TRUAX, Appellants, v. BISBEE LOCAL No. 380, COOKS' AND WAITERS' UNION, JACK BARNETT et al., Appellees

Civil No. 1544

Supreme Court of Arizona

March 5, 1918

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Cochise. Alfred C. Lockwood, Judge. Affirmed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS BY THE COURT.

The appellant commenced this action to enjoin the defendant from advertising a labor strike and from appealing to union members and sympathizers by means of banners, handbills circulars, and street talks to cease dealing with plaintiffs upon the grounds that the plaintiffs are injured in their business and the defendants are insolvent and unable to respond in damages, and that the plaintiffs have no other speedy, adequate remedy. The cause was tried on its merits and the court rendered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal.

Mr Alexander Murry and Mr. Clifton Mathews, for Appellants.

Mr William B. Cleary, for Appellees.

OPINION

CUNNINGHAM, J.

This action arises out of a dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant Bisbee Local No. 380, Cooks' and Waiters' Union, with regard to wages and hours of employment of cooks and waiters in plaintiffs' restaurant business. The plaintiffs had in their employ 10 members of the said defendant union at the union wage scale and hours. On or about April 9, 1916, plaintiffs notified all of their employees that the rate of wages and hours of employment would be changed and effective on April 10, 1916. The difference between the wages paid up to the tenth day of April, 1916, and the wages the plaintiffs proposed to pay thereafter and the hours required, nowhere appears in the record.

The defendant union contended for a continuation of the same hours and wages per day. No agreement with respect to said proposed changes in wages and hours of work having been reached by the defendant union and the plaintiffs, on April 10, 1916, all of the defendant union members quit plaintiffs' employment. Thereupon defendant union declared a strike existed, and proceeded to advertise such strike. In advertising the said strike the defendant union put out "pickets," and caused the said pickets to carry banners near the front entrance of plaintiffs' business place, the English Kitchen. The said banners had printed thereon in large letters, "so that the wording thereon could be seen from across the street, and from a considerable distance up and down the stree," the following: "The English Kitchen Unfair to Cooks and Waiters and Warren District Trades Assembly." This banner and similar banners were carried up and down the street in front of said English Kitchen during the days and during the nights until the business closed. For a period of four days immediately following the strike similar banners were carried about the district on burros. Also handbills or circulars were handed to persons on the street near the said place of business. The members of defendant union or sympathizers with their actions in the premises frequently talked about the matter, and loudly advised all friends of organized labor to desist from patronizing the English Kitchen.

The plaintiffs' exhibit, with their supplemental complaint, 14 of said circulars distributed about the streets, 11 of which close with the appeal, "Help us win," or words to the same effect. The other three circulars contain statements of the strike situation as other purported incidents are supposed to affect it.

The exhibits are very similar in language used, but no good purpose will be served in producing them here. For the purpose of illustration of the appellants' contention, I present Exhibits "D" and "K" as more nearly covering all of such complaint. Exhibit "D" is as follows:

"12 Hours Bill Truax.

"Billie Truax contends that it is impossible to operate a restaurant on the eight-hour basis and make it pay. Witness every other restaurant in the Warren district operating satisfactorily on the eight-hour basis.

"Why does Bill Truax employ scab Mexican painters? The truth is very obvious, it is cheaper and hastens the day when he 'has it made,' and can return to that dear Los Angeles, be a gentleman, perhaps have a Japanese valet, a Chinese cook, and an imported Jamaican chauffeur.

"Don't overlook the fact that Bill Truax's past record relative to Union Labor is not an unblemished tablet of stone, but nevertheless it is quite as enduring, and he will find it writ in letters large wherever he tries to do business in this U.S.A.

"The need and the necessity of the workers to organize and conduct their negotiations with the employers on a collective bargaining basis is denied by few. That is just where it 'gets to' Bill Traux; his autocratic methods in handling his help, chasing them down the street with a butcher knife, and other stunts of a like nature will have to go, and believe us, it hurts. "Remember either yourself, your father, brother, or even your sister may some time want to better their economic conditions, and we pledge ourselves to help you if we can, and not a single member of the allied traders or Cooks and Waiters' Union will ever scab on you. Help us win.

"Cooks and Waiters' Union and Warren District Trades Assembly. Ore -- Union -- Printers."

Exhibit "K" is as follows:

"To every man, woman, and child and all lovers of fair play:

"We are fighting the most consistent 'bad actor' in the district, Wm. Truax.

"Wm. Truax fought the eighty per cent. law. (Please don't overlook this fact.)

"Wm. Truax always favored hiring foreigners almost exclusively.

"Wm. Truax now sees the possibility of the Greek peril.

"We say better an eight-hour camp and a fair wage than a 10 or 12 hour camp and a fair wage a la Bill Truax.

"Wm. Truax is not being discriminated against, but we do want gilt-edged assurance that Bill Truax will keep and abide by the terms of his next contract with the Cooks' and Waiters' Union.

"Wm. Truax initiated this fight, and we are going to see it through now that it has been forced upon us. When you patronize Bill Truax you are aiding and abetting a diminutive but potential force for evil in tearing down the wages and hours in this district.

"Help us win.

"Cooks' and Waiters' Union and Warren District Trades Assembly. Union -- Ore -- Printers."

By the use of the circulars, handbills, and banners and the street talks, the defendants and their sympathizers advertised the existence of the strike, and appealed to the public in general, and to all persons allied with and friendly to organized labor in particular, to help the defendant union win the strike. The nature of this help requested at all times was to cease patronizing the plaintiff's business, the English Kitchen Restaurant, until the strike should be settled. The defendants made known to the general public the existence of the strike and its cause by stating that the plaintiffs are "unfair" to organized labor.

These conditions existing, and defendants threatening to continue along the same course of publicity by the use of the same means to win the strike, and the plaintiffs' business having diminished in volume, this action was commenced to restrain defendants from their activities above referred to. In their complaint the plaintiffs allege that on or about the tenth day of April, 1916, the defendants named, and numerous other persons, whose names are unknown to plaintiffs, and all of whom were, and now are, acting in concert with the defendants, "unlawfully and maliciously conspired and combined to inaugurate, and did inaugurate, in the said city of Bisbee, a deliberate and active campaign to boycott plaintiffs and their restaurant, the English Kitchen, and conspired and combined to induce, and by threats, menace, coercion, intimidation, and persuasion did induce, large numbers of plaintiffs' customers, patrons, and other persons . . . to quit or customers, patrons, and other persons . . . to quit or refrain from patronizing and trading with plaintiffs in their said place of business, the English Kitchen, in consequence . . . plaintiffs have suffered injury." The complaint thereafter sets forth a number of alleged specific overt acts in furtherance "of said unlawful conspiracy and combination." The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, their agents and such other persons acting in concert with them, have threatened, and do now threaten, to continue to harass and oppress plaintiffs in the conduct of their said business, and to continue said "unlawful campaign and design to boycott plaintiffs and their said restaurant, the English Kitchen." The complaint further alleges that for plaintiffs to seek to recover damages from said defendants would involve a multiplicity of suits; "that . . . each and all of said defendants are insolvent, and therefore each and all of said defendants are and will be wholly unable to respond in damages to these plaintiffs for any injury or damages to these plaintiffs from their aforesaid wrongful and unlawful acts and conduct."

The relief demanded is a writ of injunction enjoining restraining, and prohibiting defendants, etc., "from in any manner or by any means conspiring or combining to boycott the business of plaintiffs, and from threatening or declaring any boycott against said business, and from abetting, aiding, or assisting in any such boycott, and from, directly or indirectly, threatening, coercing, menacing, intimidating, or persuading any person or persons whomsoever from buying from or otherwise dealing with plaintiffs, and from printing, publishing, or displaying any sign, banner, or other device for the purpose of advertising or in furtherance of any boycott...