Upholsterers', Carpet and Linoleum Mechanics International Union, Local No. 76 v. Essex Reed & Fibre Company, Incorporated

• Decision Date: 31 July 1934
• Citation: 174 A. 207,12 N.J.Misc. 637
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery
• Parties: Upholsterers', Carpet and Linoleum Mechanics International Union, Local No. 76, New Jersey Section, et al., complainants, v. Essex Reed & Fibre Company, Incorporated, a corporation, et al., defendants

174 A. 207

UPHOLSTERERS', CARPET & LINOLEUM MECHANICS' INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL NO. 76, NEW JERSEY SECTION, et al.

v. ESSEX REED & FIBRE CO., Inc., et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

July 31, 1934.

Bill in equity by Upholsterers', Carpet & Linoleum Mechanics' International Union, Local No. 76, New Jersey Section, and another, against the Essex Reed & Fibre Company, Incorporated, and others. On order to show cause imposing limited restraint.

Limited restraint imposed by order to show cause vacated.

Charles Handler, of Newark, for complainants.

Furst & Furst, of Newark, for defendants.

BERRY, Vice Chancellor.

This matter comes on for hearing on the return of an order to show cause advised by Vice Chancellor Bigelow and imposing limited restraint. The object of the bill is to enforce an employment agreement entered into between the complainant local and the defendant corporation, and by which the defendant agreed to employ only members of the complainant union and under conditions therein specified. The agreement is for a term of one year with the privilege of termination by either party upon thirty days' notice in writing given prior to the expiration date which is fixed therein as September 1, 1934. If not so terminated, it thereafter "continues in perpetuation from year to year." There is also a motion to strike the bill on the ground that it does not present an equitable cause of action and that there is an adequate remedy at law. The defendant admits the execution of the agreement, but contends that it was temporary only until the N. R, A. code was adopted and that after the approval of such code the agreement was to be modified to eliminate inconsistencies. It is also contended by the defendant that SO per cent. of plants similar to that of the defendant operate under the N. R. A. code which permits a forty-hour week and piecework, while the agreement provides for a thirty-five hour week and certain rates of pay. It is apparent from the bill of complaint that at or about the time the agreement was entered into a strike of the employees of the defendant was in progress and that there had been a previous employment agreement between the parties. The agreement, copy of which is attached to the bill of complaint, contains the following clauses:

"All persons employed on work consisting of upholstering furniture, tufting machine operators, sewing machine operators springers, cushion makers and apprentices, shall be members in good standing of Local No. 76 of the Upholsterers' Carpet and Linoleum Mechanics International Union of North America.

"Should the union be unable to furnish sufficient workers from its membership after 48 hours time has elapsed, from the date the employer has requested the representative of the union to furnish extra help, the employer may hire non-members with the understanding that the non-member shall file application for membership in the union before he starts to work."

On the back of the first sheet of the agreement the names of the defendant's employees, twenty-seven in number, are written in ink with the rate of their pay opposite their respective names. The defendant claims, and it is not denied, that the agreement was for the benefit of the employees thus named. Twenty-one of these men have now joined in a petition of the defendant for a modification of the agreement to conform to the N. R. A. code. That the agreement was temporary is denied by the complainant. The defendant's plant is located at 84 Monroe street, Newark, Essex county, N. J., in what is known as the "metropolitan area." The complainant International Union maintains locals throughout this area and, according to the complainants' affidavits, contracts identical with the one which is the subject matter of the present litigation have been entered into between the complainant union and a majority of employers engaged in businesses similar to that of the defendant company throughout the metropolitan area. According to this affidavit, fifty-two out of eighty such employers have...