Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/801

 62O

THE GREEN BAG

INTIMIDATION BY FINES IN LABOR DISPUTES1 BY ARTHUR W. BLAKEMORE IN case of a justifiable strike has a con J. in which the Chief Justice concurs, and tractor the right to invoke the aid of the Loring J. in a separate opinion, expresses court to prevent a labor union from im his conviction that the majority is wrong posing a fine, or threatening to impose one, but that he feels bound by the prior de upon one or more of its members under its cision of the court in Martell v. White.1 He says that the principle of stare decisis rules to induce them to leave the contrac tor's employ without breaking any contract should govern the courts wherever in with him? That is the question which justice does not result and that no injustice the Massachusetts Supreme Court has can result to the labor unions through the decision of the majority, as they can prop recently decided in the affirmative.2 The strength of the court at the present erly accomplish the same result aimed at time, the public interest in the decision, its by fines by expelling members and demand probable effect on labor unions as militant ing money as a condition for reinstate organizations, the comparative novelty of ment. The majority state on this point that the doctrine laid down, and the able and if the expulsion and subsequent initiation elaborate dissenting opinion, have all com fee are part of one and the same tran bined to create a disturbance in the placid saction, then there may be a strong reason current of the law whose ripples will not for treating the procedure as a fine. die away for many a day. The course of the argument between the Let us first see what the court did decide. majority and the minority is clean cut. The suit was a bill in equity brought by an Hammond J., who writes the majority employer against certain officers and mem opinion, begins by designating the plain bers of certain labor unions. It appeared tiff's right as the common law right to a that the labor unions were conducting a reasonably free labor market, arising not strike against the plaintiff for higher wages out of contract or statute, but the nature and a shorter day, and that certain of their of things. The minority replies that this members working by the day and not right exists, to be sure, but is subject to the under contract, persisted in working not defendants' right to curtail and restrict it withstanding the strike. The agents of the by combining in a lawful strike for the unions ordered these men to cease working improvement of their conditions and, if and threatened them'with the imposition of they can do so without resorting to wrong a heavy fine under union rules on their re ful means, by wholly stopping the free flow fusal. A preliminary injunction was issued. of labor to the plaintiff. The full court has now ordered a decree The majority opinion admits the laborer's enjoining the defendants, their agents and right to combine to obtain higher wages. servants, from intimidating by the imposi and for the purpose of strengthening the tion of a fine, or by a threat of such fine, organization, to make appropriate by-laws any person or persons from entering into for its internal management, and to en the employ of the plaintiff or remaining force these by-laws by fines and penalties. therein. The majority, however, observes that There is a dissenting opinion by Sheldon, neither the employer's right to a free labor market or the employee's right of combi 1 See learned article by Hon. Jeremiah Smith in nation is absolute, but both are only relative 20 Harvard Law Review, 253, 345, 429. 2 Willcutt v. Bricklayers Union, October 24, 1908.

1185 Mass. 255.