« ForrigeFortsett »
quarryman can successfully conduct their respective affairs on an eight-hour basis, there appears no reason why street railways should not do the same.
We know that among the working classes men have become more temperate by reason of more leisure; that with added leisure has come mental and moral improvement, more of the companionship of children and wives, and more of the sunshine and joy of life. Inasmuch as it seems that nothing but good can result from such legislation, we recommend the passage of the following bill: —
AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE HOURS OF LABOR FOR CONDUCTORS AND MOTORMEN EMPLOYED BY STREET RAILWAY COMPANIES.
Be it enacted, etc., as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Chapter four hundred sixty-three of the acts of 2 the year nineteen hundred six is hereby amended by striking out 3 section ninety-five and inserting in place thereof the following: 4 - Section 95. A day's work for all conductors and motormen 5 who are employed by or on behalf of a street railway company 6 shall not exceed nine hours, and shall be so arranged by the 7 employer that it shall be performed within eleven consecutive 8 hours. No officer or agent of any such company shall require 9 from said employees more than nine hours' work for a day's 10 labor; threat of loss of employment or threat to obstruct or pre11 vent the obtaining of employment by the employees, or threat 12 to refrain from employing an employee in the future, shall be 13 considered coercion and "requiring" within the meaning of this 14 section; but on legal holidays, on Sundays, and in case of acci15 dent or unavoidable delay, extra labor may be performed for 16 extra compensation. A street railway company which fails or 17 neglects to comply with the provisions of this section shall be 18 punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five or more than one 19 hundred dollars for each offence. The provisions of this section 20 shall not affect written contracts existing upon the date of the 21 passage of this act.
1 SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
WILLIAM W. CLARKE.
DANIEL J. McDONALD.
FRANCIS J. FENNELLY.
RESOLUTIONS REGARDING EDWARD S. COHEN, D. D. DRISCOLL AND ARTHUR M. HUDDELL.
The committee desires to express its sympathy for the family of Edward Cohen, the late lamented president of the State Branch American Federation of Labor, who was shot to death by an irresponsible maniac in the anteroom of the Executive Chamber at a time when the committee was holding an executive session in its room on the floor below. It notes with pleasure that Secretary-Treasurer D. D. Driscoll, who was the victim of the same maniac, is now out of danger, and records its gratification that Arthur M. Huddell most fortunately escaped serious injury.
All three of these gentlemen took a most important part in the hearings before the committee, and were foremost in advocating the passage of certain labor measures, and untiring in their efforts to furnish the committee with information as to conditions which seemed to them to call for legislative relief. Their presentation of labor's cause was able, and the manner of it always courteous.
The committee unanimously voted that this resolution be incorporated in its report, and that copies of the same be sent to the family of the late Edward Cohen, to Mr. D. D. Driscoll and Mr. Arthur M. Huddell.
WILLIAM H. FEIKER.
WILLIAM W. CLARKE.
ELMER C. POTTER.
CHARLES D. B. FISK.
WILLIAM E. WEEKS.
DANIEL J. McDONALD.
FRANCIS J. FENNELLY.
ANDREWS WESTGATT COMPANY v. LOCAL ASSEMBLY 1552, K. of L. Decree.
This cause came on to be heard upon the plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction, and after due hearing of counsel in consideration thereof it is ordered and adjudged that an injunction issue pendente lite, to remain in force until further order of this court or some justice thereof, restraining the following respondents, namely, A. E. Maynard, Thomas O'Donnell, Benjamin Waldman, Edward Holliwood, Walter Anderson, Arthur Anderson, Carl Anderson, Charles Lynch, George Bettes, Joseph Park, B. Dick, William La Point, Abraham La Point and Winton Murphy, and each and every one of them, their agents and servants, from interfering with the petitioner's business by patrolling the streets and other approaches to or in the vicinity of the premises occupied by the petitioner, a factory in the city of Everett, for the purpose of preventing any person or persons who now are or may hereafter be in its employment, or desirous of entering the same, from entering it or continuing in it; or by obstructing or interfering with such persons or any others in entering or leaving the petitioner's said premises; or by intimidating by threats or otherwise any person or persons who now are or may hereafter be in the employment of the petitioner, or desirous of entering the same, from entering it or continuing in it; or by any scheme or conspiracy among themselves or with others, organized for the purpose of annoying, hindering, interfering with or preventing any person or persons who now are or may hereafter be in the employment of the plaintiff, or desirous of entering it or from continuing therein.
By the court, Feb. 27, 1906.
3620 EQUITY, 1906.
NAPIER MOTOR COMPANY v. LOCAL NO. 264, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA
TION OF MACHINISTS, et al.
Ad Interim Injunction.
And you are hereby notified to appear before some one of the justices of this court at the equity session, and show cause why injunction should not issue as prayed for in said bill of complaint;
and in the mean time and until such hearing, you, the said respondents, and each of you, your agents, your attorneys and counsellors and each and every one of them are strictly enjoined and commanded to desist and refrain from patrolling the streets or premises in front of or near the complainant's manufactory or sales room; from detaining, threatening, assaulting, intimidating or in any way attempting to intimidate the complainant's employees; and from any way interfering with the conduct of business by the complainant as now carried on, or conducted by it; and from annoying, hindering or preventing any person or persons who now are or may hereafter become employees of the complainant, or desirous of becoming such, from entering into any contract relations with it, or interfering with such person or persons in entering or leaving the complainant's said premises; and from conspiring or contriving, by threats or intimidations, to annoy, hinder, threaten with or prevent any person or persons, firms or corporations from entering into business relations with said complainant or from continuing
March 1, 1906. Interlocutory decree, continuing ad interim injunction.
3645 EQUITY, 1906.
JACOB LEWITZKY et als. v. THE INDEPENDENT RAG WORKERS OF MASSACHUSETTS et als.
Interlocutory Decree for Injunction.
This cause came on to be heard at this sitting upon the return of an order of notice to show cause why an injunction should not be issued as prayed for in the bill of complaint as amended; and thereupon, after hearing counsel for each of the parties, on consideration thereof it is ordered and decreed that the defendants and each of them, their agents, servants, officers, attorneys and counsellors, be enjoined until the further order of the court from patrolling the streets in front of or near the place of business of the plaintiffs in Chelsea; and from intimidating, annoying, hindering or preventing any person or persons who now are or may hereafter become employees of the plaintiffs from entering into any contract relations with them, or to deprive thereof; and from in any way annoying, threatening, obstructing or interfering with such persons or any others in entering or leaving the premises of plaintiff; and from threatening or in any way intimidating persons desirous of entering the employ of plaintiffs from so entering it; and from injuring or interfering in any way with the said plaintiffs in the conduct of their business.
By the court, June 21, 1906. 3886 EQUITY, 1906.
SAMPSON & MURDOCK COMPANY v. BOSTON TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION et al.
Decree for Injunction.
This cause came on to be heard on the return of an order of notice to show cause why injunction should not issue; and after hearing the testimony of witnesses and the arguments of counsel, on consideration thereof it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that a writ of temporary injunction issue, enjoining and restraining the individual respondents, individually and as officers and members of the Boston Typographical Union, No. 13, their agents and servants, from interfering with the plaintiff's business by printing, publishing or circulating, or causing to be printed, published or circulated, a certain paper or circular purporting to be signed "Boston Typographical Union, by Thomas M. Nolan," and entitled "Boston City Directory," a copy whereof is annexed to the bill of complaint; or any other paper, circular or printed matter intended or designed to deprive the plaintiff of customers, or to prevent persons or corporations desirous of entering into contracts or other business relations with the plaintiff from so doing; said injunction to continue until further order of the court.
By the court, April 13, 1906.
3736 EQUITY, 1906.
Circular referred to in bill of complaint is as follows: "Organized labor does not patronize unfair publication; fair-minded business men will not. The Boston City Directory for 1906 is unfair.”
JOHN MILLER AND WILLIAM MILLER v. FREDERICK J. KNEELAND et al. Writ of Injunction.
We, therefore, in consideration of the premises, do strictly enjoin and command you, the said respondents, and each of you and all and every the persons before named, to desist and refrain from wilfully and unlawfully intimidating and preventing persons from remaining and entering the employment of the complainants; and from wilfully and unlawfully intimidating and threatening the customers of the complainants and the business of said customers if such customers continue and trade with the complainants; and from posting false, malicious and libelous placards, signs, notices and posters of and concerning the complainants, and designed to prevent the public and the persons from doing business with the complainants, and their customers from continuing their trade and business relations with the complainants; and from distributing malicious and libelous cards and hand-bills; and from driving through the public streets of the