Labor Union

A combination or association of laborers for the purpose of fixing the rate of their wages and hours of work, for their mutual benefit and protection, and for the purpose of righting grievances against their employers. In England when the rate of wages was fixed by law or by the determination of a magistrate, and when there was a statutory provision against conspiracies and covenants among workmen' not to make or do their blnatlon of workmen to refuse to work for 80 much per diem, though the matter about which they conspired might be lawful for one of them or for any of them to do had they not conspired to do It; the Journeymen Tailors case, 8 Mod. 11; but in the United States, though this decision was followed in the case of the Boot and Shoemakers of Philadelphia; Pamphlet 1806; the Pittsburg Cordwainers; Pamphlet, 1816; and in People V. Fisher, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 9, 28 Am. Dec. 501, and People v. Melvin, 2 Wheel. Or. Cas. (N. Y.) 262; yet they were decided by Inferior courts, and in the first case before the supreme court of Pennsylvania (Com. V. Carlisle) that court held that a combination of employers to reduce the wages of their employ6s was not unlawful; Bright. 36. In the case of the Master Stevedores v. Walsh, Daly, J., upheld this principle and denied the authority of the English case; Master Stevedores’ Ass’n v. Walsh, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 1; as did Shaw, J., in Com. v. Hunt, 4 Mete. (Mass.) Ill, 38 Am. DeC. 346; and these cases may be considered as having definitely settled the law in this country that a combination of laborers for a lawful purpose does not amount to* a conspiracy. In England, however, the Journeymen Tailors case, supra, was followed as late as 1855, when it was held that a bond signed by eighteen employers to conduct their business as to rates of wages, time of work, etc., was a combination in restraint of trade and null and void at common law; 6 El. & Bl. 47; and in 1869 the court was divided as to whether a labor union whose by-laws countenanced strikes was not thereby rendered Illegal; L. R. 4 Q. B. 602. In 1824 the first act was passed In England which legalized the combination of workmen; 5 Geo. IV. c. 99; but this was repealed the following year, and by the repealing act the combination of workmen was made lawfnl for the purpose of agreeing upon the prices which they might demand and the hours during which they would work, but making puni.shable any attempt to enforce the laws of the combining workmen by violence and intimidation; 6 Geo. IV. c. 129. In 1871 two acts were passed for the purpose of consolidating and settling the law; 34 <& 35 Viet. c. 31; and these were supplemented by the Trades Union Amendment Act of 1876; these statutes going so far as to declare such combinations lawful even when acting (peaceably) in restraint of trade, the statute providing that no agreement or combination of two or more to do, or procure to be done, 'any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employer and workmen shall be indictable as a conspiracy, if such act would not be criminal If cottimltted by one; 38 & 39 Viet. c. 86. In this country law of conspiracy seems to be repealed, and in others It is modified. For legislation on the subject and the course of decisions concerning It, see Stimson, Lab. Law sec. 55. The right of entering and leaving the service of an employer is one that every man possesses and Is one of the corollaries of personal liberty, and it has almost uniformly been held that the same right might be exercised by any nurnlier of men jointly, If conducted in a peaceable and orderly manner and attended with no Infringement of the rights of others; Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Hollis, 54 Minn. 223, 56 N. W. 1119, 21 L. R. A. 337, 40 Am. St. Rep. 319; contra. State v. Donaldson, 32 N. J. L. 151, 90 Am. Dec. 649. It has been held that such unions have an entire right to seek to compel employers to deal solely with men belonging to their union by all proper means, as by persuasion or even by a properly conducted strike; Jacobs V. Cohen, 183 N. Y. 207, 76 N. E. 5, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 292, 111 Am. St. Rep. 730, 6 Ann. Cas. 280; they may by their representative present to a concern against which a strike has been declared an agreement for signature embodying the conditions upon which union men will re-enter its service; Parkinson Co. V. Building Trades Council, 164 Cal. 581, 98 Pac. 1027, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 5.50, 16 Ann. Cas. 1165. They may agree that they will not work for or deal with certain classes of men or work at less than a certain price or without certain conditions; Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 14, 8 Am. Rep. 287; Rogers V. Evarts, 17 N. Y. Supp. 264; U. S. v. Moore, 129 Fed. 630; Rohlf v. Kasemeier, 140 la. 182, 118 N. W. 276, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1284, 132 Am. St. Rep. 261, 17 Ann. Cas. 750; or arrange for a committee and officer of the union to represent them in conference for adjusting differences; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. V. Switchmen’s Union, 158 Fed. 541. If the means are not unlawful, they have a right to endeavor to persuade those who have been accustomed to deal with an employer to withdraw their trade; Slnsheimer V. Garment Workers, 77 Hun 215, 28 N. Y. Supp. 321; they may agree riot to teach their trade to others; Snow v. Wheeler, 113 Mass. 179; and where the combination is peaceable and without intimidation, employes may peacefully assemble to argue and persuade concerning a reduction of wages with the expectation of a strike, and the employes will not be charged with any loss resulting from their quitting work; Arthur v. Oakes, 63 Fed. 310, 11 C. C. A. 209, 24 U. S. App. 240, 25 L. R. A. 414; and they may lawfully pay the expenses of those who leave their employment and may post in their places of assembly the names of those who have contributed to the fund for the support of the workmen who have left; Rogers v. Evarts, But other cases have held differently: A labor union may not prevent an employer from employing certain workmen; State v. Stewart, 69 Vt. 273, 9 Atl. 659, 69 Am. Rep. 710; or from obtaining workmen; Blindell v. Hagan, 64 Fed. 40; or prevent workmen from obtaining work; 6 Cox, O. O. 162; People V. Walsh, 110 N. Y. 633, 17 N. E. 871; or threaten a boycott; Barr v. Trades Council, 63 N. J. Eq. 101, 30 Atl. 881; State v. Glidden, 65 Conn. 46, 8 Atl. 890, 3 Am. St. Rep. 23; Casey v. Typographical Union, 45 Fed. 135,' 12 L. R. A. 193; or carry out a boycott; Thomas v. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. 803; Sherry v. Perkins, 147 Mass. 212, 17 N. E. 307, 9 Am. St. Rep. 689; or strike with the Intention of forcing others to join the union; People v. Smith, 10 N. Y. St Rep. 730; or picket the premises of an employer during a strike with the usual accompaniments of insulting and threatening words and gestures to those who work for him; 10 Cox, C. C. 592; 84 L. T. N. 8. 68; Murdock v. Walker, 152 Pa. 595, 25 Ati. 492, 34 Am. St. Rep. 678; [1896] 1 Ch. 811. They may not coerce others pursuing the same calling as themselves to join their society or to adopt their views or rules; Quinn v. Leathern [1901] A. C. 495; [1902] K. B. 737; [1903] 2 K. B. 620; they may not intimidate an employer by threats, if the threats are sufficient to induce him to discharge an employs whom he desired to retain and would have retained but for such unlawful threats; id.; Perkins v. Pendleton, 90 Me. 166, 38 Atl. 96, 60 Am. St. Rep. 252; Lucke V. Clothing Cutters’ & Trimmers' Assembly, 77 Md. 396, 26 Atl. 505, 19 L. R. A. 408, 39 Am. St. Rep. 421. A labor union conducting a strike to force a particular plant to unionize may be enjoined from paying those having or seeking employment to leave or not to enter its service; Tunstall v. Coal Co., 192 Fed. 808, 113