W. & A. Fletcher Co. v. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists

• Decision Date: 02 October 1903
• Citation: 55 A. 1077
• Parties: W. & A. FLETCHER CO. v. INTERNATIONAL ASS'N OF MACHINISTS et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

55 A. 1077

W. & A. FLETCHER CO.

v. INTERNATIONAL ASS'N OF MACHINISTS et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Oct. 2, 1903.

Suit by the W. & A. Fletcher Company against the International Association of Machinists and others for an injunction to restrain picketing by strikers. Injunction granted as to some defendants, and denied as to others.

Edward Russ and Francis Scott, for complainant.

James G. Blauvelt and William Hughes, for defendants.

STEVENSON, V. C. (orally). In the Injunction suit brought by the Fletcher Machine Company against the International Association of Machinists and others the conclusion which I have reached is that the complainant is not entitled to any further preliminary restraint than that which is now embodied in the restraining orders. The motion was argued on both sides, practically with the admission that there was nothing objectionable in the restraining orders as they now stand; that those orders were proper, and should remain binding upon such of the defendants as stand fairly charged under oath with conduct which brings them within their reach.

The counsel for complainant practically confined his argument to the proposition that a preliminary injunction should go in the case to restrain picketing, without reference to the object of the picketing or its effect. If this view is correct, it follows that workmen maintaining a strike have no right to station pickets merely for the purpose of giving them such information in regard to their late employers' operations as may be discovered by ordinary observation. It seems to me that this claim is not well founded; that it is contrary to the great weight of reason as well as authority.

Picketing may be lawful; picketing may be unlawful. Whether picketing is lawful or unlawful depends wholly upon the purpose with which it is carried on, or perhaps, it would be more accurate to say, the effect which is produced by it if the purpose and effect are to intimidate, to interfere with the liberty of workmen in seeking employment, to interfere with what in another case I called the employer's right to have labor flow freely to him, so that a reasonably courageous person would be restrained from offering his labor to such employer, then picketing is unlawful, and, where the other necessary conditions for the Interference of a court of equity exist, will be prohibited by an injunction.

If, however, the picketing is carried on for the mere purpose of obtaining information, or for...