Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/475

 446

The Green Bag

members in the employ of persons with whom they have no trade dispute, by threats of fine and expulsion, for the purpose of coercing such employers into refraining from purchasing materials manufactured by a person with whom the union has a trade dispute.5 It has likewise been declared unlawful for a combination of officers of a union to order strikes under threats of enforcing their orders by the infliction of effective penalties, where the object of these acts is not to further the interests of the members of the union, but to gratify the personal ambition or malice of the officers; and where the members thus coerced are employees of a carrier en gaged in the transportation of the mail, such officers are guilty of conspiracy to obstruct and retard the mails, an of fense punishable under Rev. Stat. U. S. §§ 3995, 5440.8 And the carrier would unquestionably be entitled to an in junction against such acts. 2d. Even in case of a lawful strike, the imposition of, or threats to impose penalties, such as fines, suspension, or expulsion, to cause members to join in or continue on strike, would be unlawful, if the members on whom this pressure was brought to bear were under contracts to work for a definite time for the employer against whom the strike had been declared.7 It is well settled that even simple persuasion cannot be employed to induce persons to join a strike, in violation of their contracts of employment, unless those employing the persuasion are acting in the exercise of some equal or superior bPurvis v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and oiners, 214 Pa. St. 344, 63 Atl. 585, 12 L. R. A.(N. S.) 52, 112 Am. St. Rep. 272. 'In re Charge to Grand Jury, 62 Fed. 828. M. R. Barnes &• Co. v. Berry, 156 Fed. 72; Wabash &• C. R. Co. v. Hannahan, 121 Fed. 563. And see Branch v. Roth, 10 Ont. Law (Can.) 284; and opinion of Sheldon, J., in L. D. Willcutt Sons Co. v. Bricklayers' Benevolent and Protective Union, Mass., 85 N. E. 897.

right,8 and a fortiori would methods of a coercive nature be unlawful. Jd. The remaining question for con sideration is this : Can a labor union, in aid of a strike which it has declared, use against members unwilling to quit their employment such coercion as is inci dental to the imposition of, or threats to impose fines, suspension, or expulsion, to force them to join the strike, or con tinue on strike after going out, where the strike itself is lawful, and the mem bers against whom the coercive meas ures are directed are under no contract of employment for a definite time with the employer against whom the strike is declared but may quit the service at will? While this question is not free from difficulty and the decisions not in harmony, it is believed that both on principle and on the weight of author ity, it must be answered in the affirma tive. It will be considered (a) on the weight of authority; (6) on principle. (a) In L. D. Willcutt & Sons Co. v. Bricklayers' Benevolent & Protective Union,9 in which the question was con sidered at great length, it was held by a divided court that the imposition of, or threats of imposition of fines of a coercive nature by a union in further ance of a strike, to force members to join the strike who were unwilling to do so, is an unlawful injury to the em ployer against whom the strike is in operation, although the strike itself is a lawful one, and the members of the union in his employ against whom the coercive measures are directed violate no contractual right of the employer by leaving, and that the employer is ^Parker v. Bricklayers' Union No. I, 10 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 458; Jersey City Printing Co. v. Cassidy, 63 N. J. Eq. 759, 53 Atl. 230; South Wales Miners' Federation v. Glamorgan Coal Co., L. R. (1905) A. C. 239; Knudsen v. Benn. 123 Fed. 636; Southern R. Co. v. Machinists Local Union, 111 Fed. 490. And see W. A. Fletcher Co. v. International Association of Machinists, N. J., 55 Atl. 1077. •Mass., 85 N. E. 897.