conducting of the mines named in the bill, either by menaces, threats, or intimidation of any character, used to prevent the employee of said mines from going to and from same, or from engaging in their usual business of mining. Defendants joined a body of over 200 striking miners, and marching with music and banners, passed one of said mines and the homes of the miners working therein, marching and countermarching for three days along the public highway between the mine and the homes of the miners, halting in front of the mine, and taking the position on each side of the road which the miners must cross in getting to and from the mine, before daylight and late at night, at the time when such miners were going to and from their work. The avowed object of the strikers was to influence the miners to join in the strike, and this marching and halting in front of the mine were with the evident intent to accomplish this object by intimidation, and some miners were thereby intimidated and kept away from their work. Held, that defendants were guilty of contempt. (8) 1902. July 24. C. C. N. D. West Virginia. 116 Fed. Rep., 510. United States ex re. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. Haggarty et al. Syllabus, 1, 2, 3.—(1) Injunctions—Grounds-The combination to induce strikes. The power of a court of equity may be invoked to restrain and inhibit by injunction a combination which is formed to induce employees who are not dissatisfied with the terms of their employment to strike for the purpose of inflicting injury and damage upon the employers. 2. Same. While employees have the right to quit their employment whenever they desire, unless contractual relations exist between them and their employers, which should control such right, the action of the third persons, having no interest in the contracts between workmen and their employers, in conspiring to control the action of the workmen and to induce them to strike by means of threats, intimidation, or a resort to any other modes usually employed in such cases, is an illegal and malicious interference with the employer's business, which a court of equity may properly enjoin where it is necessary to prevent irreparable injury. 3. Same-Violation-Contempt of court. Defendants who were alleged to be unlawfully interfering with the business of a coal company and its employees by attempting to incite the latter to strike and were enjoined from assembling together, in camp or otherwise, at or near the mines of the company or at or so near the residences of its employees, as to disturb, alarm, or intimidate such employees, so as to prevent them from working in the mines or to prevent or interfering with them in passing to or from their work at the mines or in otherwise interfering with them as the employees of the company. After being served with the injunction, defendants assembled and held an open-air meeting within 1,000 feet from the opening of the mine and within 300 to 400 from the residence of the miners and in plain view of both. It was also near where the miners were obliged to pass in going to and from their work and 150 feet from the company's property. At such meeting violent speeches were made by defendants, in which they stated that the injunction did not amount to anything and would not stop them; that if they were arrested, others would take their places; and they criticized the court for granting an injunction, stating that the judge was a tool of the company and no attention should be paid to his order, but that the miners should be made to lay down their tools and come out. It was shown that such meeting disturbed the miners, who were afraid of violence and that the works would be blown up; that they had no disagreement with their employer and a large majority of them did not desire to strike, but many said they would quit work unless they could be protected. Held, that such action by defendants was a violation of the injunction and a contempt of court. Į (9) 1903. June 22. C. C. D. Minnesota, fifth division. 123 Fed. Rep., 636. Injunction--Labor strikes-Interferences with interstate commerce. Employees who have quit their employment, have no further interest in the business of their former employer and no lawful right to interfere with such business by attempting to compel or induce other employees to leave his service and violate their contract by means of threats, force, intimidation, violation or abuse or persuasion; and where the business is the handling of property while in course of transportation, as a subject of interstate commerce, and it is stopped or obstructed by such action on the part of defendants, the continuance of such interference will be enjoined by a Federal court. (10) 1903. August 17. C. C. E. D. Missouri. 124 Fed. Rep., 246. Boyer et al. v. Western Union Telegraph Co. Syllabus, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.—(1) Master and servant-Right to discharge. In the absence of a contract for employment for a definite time an employer has the right to discharge his employee without notice at any time. (2) Conspiracy to destroy labor union. As, in the absence of contract for employment for a definite period, the employer may discharge his employees at any time, for any reason or for no reason, there can be no such thing as an unlawful conspiracy to destroy the labor union by discharging its members or refusing to employ them. (3) Same-Bill for injunction-Conclusions of law. An allegation in a bill by members of a labor union for an injunction, that defendant, its officers and agents, have unlawfully combined and confederated together to destroy the union and by threats, intimidation, and coercion, and otherwise, are interfering with plaintiffs, and that others of their employees have united with the union and are seeking to prevent those discharged from obtaining employment, contains only conclusions of law. (4) Same-Breach of contract of employment-Equitable relief The remedy for a discharge from employment is at law for breach of contract and not in equity to enjoin the discharge. (5) Same-Right to blacklist. An employer, having discharged employees for belonging to a labor union, has the right to keep a book containing their names, showing the reason of their discharge, and to invite inspection thereof by other employers, even though the latter, therefore, refuse to hire the discharged employees. (11) 1907. October 21. C. C. S. D. Ohio. 156 Fed. Rep., 72. A. R. Barnes & Co. et al v. Berry et al. Syllabus, 6.-Held, to justify an injunction restraining the officers of the union from demanding a modification of the existing contract, from calling, instituting, or inciting strikes because of the refusal of the members of the Typothetæ to institute an eight-hour day and a closed shop, from arranging for a referendum vote of the employees on the subject of instituting strikes and from paying strike benefits. (12) 1909. September 21. C. C. N. D. West Virginia. 172 Fed. Rep., 965. Syllabus, 1, 2.—(1) Trade unions-Labor organizations-Legality and rights. A voluntary association of workingmen, whether secret or not, for the mutual benefit of its members is lawful, if the purposes they seek to attain and the means employed to that end are peaceable and lawful, and among the rights of its members is that of collectively and peaceably leaving the service of their employer when the terms thereof become unsatisfactory to them, and also the right under ordinary circumstances to solicit other workingmen to join their association by reason, argument, and persuasion. (2) Injunction-Combinations-Interference with contract by third persons. An employer and its employees may lawfully contract with respect to the terms of the employment, and as incidental thereto, that the employees shall not join a labor union and the employer shall not employ union men, and when such a contract has been made a combination between officers or members of the labor union to induce either party to violate the contract, with which they have no rightful concern, constitutes unlawful conspiracy, to restrain the carrying out of which the other party is entitled to an injunction. (1) 1902. LIST NO. 2.-CITATIONS WITHOUT SYLLABUS. November 8. C. C. D. Nebraska. 120 Fed., 102. Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Ruef et al. (2) 1903. April 1. C. C. E. D. Missouri, E. D. 121 Fed., 564. Wabash R. R. Co. v. Hannahan et al. (3) 1903. May 11. Mobile & Ohio R. R. v. E. E. Clark et al. 4) 1904. September 27. Newport Iron & Brass Foundry v. Moulders' Union. (5) 1905. July 1. C. C. N. D. California. 139 Fed., 71. Loewe et al. v. California State Federation of Labor. Armstrong Cork Co. v. Anheuser-Busch. C. C. S. D. Iowa, E. D. A., T. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Gee. January 30. C. C. Md. Ohio, W. D. 150 Fed., 148. Pope Motor 149 Fed., 577. Hammond (11) 1906. November 7. C. C. N. D. California. Lumber Co. v. Sailors' Union of the Pacific. V (12) 1906. December 11. C. C. E. D. Wisconsin. 150 Fed., 155. Allis-Chalmers Co. v. Iron Molders' Union 125 et al. (13) 1907. July 2. Central District & Printing Tel. Co. v. Kent. v (14) 1907. September 26. C. C. N. D. West Virginia. 156 Fed., 173. National Telephone Co. of West Virginia v. Kent. (15) 1907. August 7. C. C. D. Montana. 156 Fed., 809. Rocky Mountain Bell Tel. Co. v. Montana Federation of Labor. (16) 1907. October 17. C. C. A. eighth circuit. 156 Fed., 357. Shine v. Fox Bros. Mfg. Co. (17) 1907. October 21. C. C. S. D. Ohio, W. D. 156 Fed., 72. A. R. Barnes & Co. v. Berry. (18) 1907. December 13. C. C. W. D. New York. 158 Fed., 690. D., L. & W. R. R. Co. v. Switchmen's Union of North America. (19) 1908. March 7. C. C. D. Nevada. 159 Fed., 500. Goldfield Con. Mines Co. v. Goldfield Miners' Union 220 et al. (20) 1908. October 9. C. C. A. seventh circuit. 166 Fed., 45. Iron Molders' Union 125 of Milwaukee v. Allis-Chalmers Co. (21) 1909. May 25. C. C. N. D. West Virginia. 170 Fed., 463. Carter et al v. Fortney et al. 1909. September 9. C. C. N. D. West Virginia. 172 Fed., 722. Carter v. Fortney et al. V (22) 1909. September 21. C. C. N. D. West Virginia. 172 Fed., 963. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell. (23) 1910. July. C. C. S. D. New York. 180 Fed., 896. Irving et al v. Joint District Council of New York, etc. (24) 1911. April. C. C. A. eighth circuit. 187 Fed., 415. Robinson et al. (25) 1911. October 23. C. C. E. D. Illinois. 190 Fed., 910. R. R. v. International Assn. of Machinists. The hearing was thereupon adjourned. Kolley et al. v. Illinois Central LIMITING FEDERAL INJUNCTIONS HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SIXTY-SECOND CONGRESS THIRD SESSION ON H. R. 23635 AN ACT TO AMEND AN ACT ENTITLED "AN ACT TO CODIFY, Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary VOL. 2 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1913 |