Blacklisting

A list of names of persons kept for the purpose of prohibiting or recommending against dealings with them. The publication of such a list is libellous per se unless justified or privileged; Hartnett v. Plumbers' Supply Ass'n, 169 Mass. 229, 47 N. E. 1002, 38 L. It. A. 194; Nettles v. Somervell, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 627, 25 B. \Y. 658; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pritchett, 108 Ga. 411, 34 S. K. 216. To blacklist has been held not to impute the conm. of a crime or other conduct exposing one to public hatred, punishment, disgrace or derision; Wabash R. Co. v. Young, 1<;2 Ind. L03, 69 N. E. 1003, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1091. False statements manifestly hurtful to a man in bis credit or business and intended to be so are not privileged; Weston v. Barnicoat, 175 Mass. 454. 56 N. E. G19, 49 L. B. A. G12; nor are communications sent to the members of an organization for the purpose of coercing the payment of the claims of the persons publishing such communication; Muetze v. Tuteur, 77 Wis. 236, 46 N. W. 123, 9 L. R. A. 86, 20 Am. St Rep. 115. See Commerciai. Agency; Libel. A more general understanding of the term is that it has reference to the practice of one employer presenting to another the names of employes for the purpose of furnishing information concerning their standing as employes; State v. Justus, 85 Minn. 279, 88 N. W. 759, 56 L. R. A. 757, 89 Am. St Rep. 550. In the report of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission, May, 1903, it is described as a combination among employers not to employ workmen discharged by any of the members of the coal combination, and in this sense it is recognized by the legislative enactments in many of the states which prohibit employers from blacklisting an employe with the intent of preventing his employment by others. But many of these acts also contain a provision that they shall not be construed as preventing an employer from furnishing a truthful statement of the cause of discharge. Such an act is held not to be in violation of the 14th amendment and not to be class legislation; State v. Justus. 85 Minn. 279, 8S N. W. 759. 56 L. R. A. 757. 89 Am. St. Rep. 550; Joyce v. R. Co., 100 Minn. 225, 110 X. W. 975, 8 L. R. A. (X. S. i 756. In the absence of malice, it is not libelous to circulate a blacklist of workmen among officials whose duty it is to employ them; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Richmond, 73 Tex. 508, 11 S. W. 555. 4 L. R. A. 2S0, 15 Am. St. Rep- 794; ami a record may be kept of the reasons for the discharge of a railway servant and communicated to persons Interested; Hebner v. R. Co., 78 Minn. 2S9, 80 X. W. 1128, 79 Am. St. Rep. 3S7. Such a communication, when the employe was discharged for gross neglect of duty, was held *rs' Supply Ass'n, 169 Mass. 220, 47 N. E. 1002, 38 L. R. A. 194. An agreement among several railroad companies not to employ a person discharged for a good cause by any of them is not legally injurious, unless the statements are false and the person has sought and been refused employment elsewhere; Hundley v. R. Co., 105 Ky. 1G2, 48 S. W. 429, 63 L. R. A. 289, 88 Am. St. Rep. 298; nor is an agreement among employers not to employ those who leave without cause and refuse to conform to certain rules an unlawful combination or conspiracy; Willis v. Mfg. Co., 120 Ga. 597, 48 S. E. 177, 1 Ann. Cas. 472. It has been said that an agreement of employers not to employ a particular person, in order more effectively to compete with employes, Is not distinguishable from an agreement of laborers not to work for a particular person; 17 Harv. L. R. 139; but see Mattison v. R. Co., 3 Oh. S. C. & C. P. 526, where such a combination of employers was declared illegal. Striking employe's, whose names were in a blacklist sent to other employers in the same city, may not unite in an action. If a right exists, it is in favor of each one separately; Worthington v. Waring, 157 Mass. 421, 32 N. E. 744, 20 L. R. A. 342, 34 Am. St. Rep. 294. An injunction will not be granted to restrain a company from placing employes' names on a blacklist, or from maintaining such a list and permitting other employers to inspect it; Boyer v. Tel. Co., 124 Fed. 246; but see Casey v. Cincinnati Typographical Union No. 3, 45 Fed. 135, 12 L. R. A. 193, where the publication of posters, circulars, etc., by employes for the purpose of carrying out a conspiracy to boycott was restrained by injunction. A blacklisting statute requiring a corporation to give to its employes service letters stating the true reason for their discharge does not deprive it of the equal protection of the laws under the 14th amendment; St Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Hixon (Tex.) 126 S. W. 338. See Boycott; Combination; Conspieacy; Injunction; Libel; Labob Union.