strike

The term 'strike' includes any strike or other concerted stoppage of work by employees (including a stoppage by reason of the expiration of a collective-bargaining agreement) and any concerted slow-down or other concerted interruption of operations by employees.

Used as an abbreviated form of "strike out" or "strike off," as a motion "to strike" evidence. The combined act or effort of workmen ing to continue until the concession is granted. 255 III. 222.

A combined effort by workmen to obtain higher wages or other concessions from their employers, by stopping work at a preconcerted time. Where this is peaceably effected without positive breach of contract, it is not unlawful; Irving v. Dist. Council, 180 Fed. 896; but it sometimes amounts to conspiracy. Most of the decisions bear upon questions arising more or less indirectly from the strike. The word “strike” is used to describe various kinds of conduct quite distinct from each other; 20 H. L. R. 254. A sympathetic strike is one wherein the strikers have no demands or grievances of their own, but strike for the purpose of indirectly aiding other employes or organizations; 1 Eddy. Comb. Sec. 520. They have not been directly held illegal, and are considered justifiable, though only to be resorted to in extreme cases; Mitchell, Org. Labor 304. It is no answer to a suit against a common carrier for failure to deliver goods with reasonable promptness, that a strike among their employes prevented; Blackstock v. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 48, 75 Am. Dec. 372; Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Rae, 18 111. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574. But otherwise if the employes are discharged and afterwards interfere unlawfully with the business of the road; Cooley, Torts 640, n. Where a railroad company receives freight for shipment, it is not liable for delay in its delivery which is caused by a strike of its employes, accompanied by violence and intimidation of such a character as cannot be overcome by the company or controlled by the civil authorities when called upon; Haas v. R. Co., 81 Ga. 792, 7 S. E. 629; In- Ft W. & C. R. Co. v. Hazen, 84 111. 36, 25 Am. Rep. 422. Id L. R. 6 Eq. 555, the president and secretary of a trades-union, and a printer employed by them, were restrained by injunction from posting placards and publishing advertisements, urging workmen to keep away from plaintiff’s factory, wligre a strike against the reduction of wages was in progress; but in L. R. 10 Ch. 142, this case was overruled. An attempt has been made to derive some of the authority for the use of an injunction in such cases to an extent not before recognized in the settled principles of equity jurisprudence from the English Judicature Act of 1873 as a consequence of the union of law and equity procedure. In 20 Ch. Div. 501, it is said that “the courts have interpreted this act as giving them power to restrain one man from persuading another to break his contract with a third person, when the object of such persuasion is the malicious injury to the third person,” Where a trades-union ordered a strike and posted pickets to persuade workmen from entering the employ of the plaintiff, such conduct was held to come within the terms of the act prescribing a penalty against every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing, or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do cr abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal authority... watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach td such house or place.” [1S9G] 1 Ch. 811. The circuit court of the United States has jurisdiction to restrain the unlawful acts of persons engaged in a strike where they interfere with the operations of interstate commerce or with the transmission of the mails, and may enforce its injunction by proceedings in contempt which are not open to review oil habeas corpus in the supreme court or any other court; In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 15 Sup. Ct. 900, 39 L. Ed. 1092. A display of force by strikers against laborers who wish to work, such as surrounding them in large numbers, applying opprobrious epithets to them, and urging them in a hostile manner not to go to work, though no force be actually used, is as much intimidation as violence itself. Such conduct will be restrained by injunction, and the actors will be liable in damages to the employer of the laborers. Where new men employed to take the place of strikers are on their way to work, their time cannot be lawfully taken up and their progress interfered with by the strikers on any pretence or under any claim of right to argue or persuade them to break their contracts. Where a bill has been filed against strikers for an injunction and for with the case after the strike is ovar, for the purpose of recovering damages, and it is improper for a judge to express from the bench an opinion that the case should have been dropped; O’Neil v. Behanna, 182 Pa. 236, 37 Atl. 843, 38 L. R. A. 382, 61 Am. St. Rep. 702. Strikes of laborers to raise wages or lockouts by employers are lawful; 10 Cox, Cr. Ca. 592; Aluminum Castings Co. v. Local No. 84, 197 Fed. 221; Irving v. Dist. Council, 180 Fed. 896. Strikers who seek a legitimate end may not be enjoined from pursuing that end in a legitimate way merely because they may have overstepped the line and trespassed on the rights of their adversary, but a decree fixing a barrier at such Jline and subjecting them to punishment and damages for having crossed it isras far as the court can go; Iron Moulders’ Union v. Allis-Chalmers Co., 166 Fed. 45, 91 C. C. A. 631, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 315. Workmen may seek, take or follow the advice of officers of their union as to the advisability of a strike; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Switchmen’s Union, 158 Fed. 541; a union may order a strike; Aluminum Castings Co. v. Local No. 84, 197 Fed. 223; workmen may peaceably persuade their fellow-workmen to leave their employer’s service in order to compel an advance in wages; Rogers v. Evarts, 17 N. Y. Supp. 264. An injunction against strikers should not prohibit either persuasion or picketing as such, but, when carried beyond their legitimate limits, they become duress or intimidation and as such may be enjoined; Iron Moulders’ Union v. Allis-Chalmers Co., 166 Fed. 45, 91 C. C. A. 631, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 315; but the action of leaders of a strike, conducted primarily for the purpose of compelling recognition of a labor organization, in paying money to non-union employes of a complainant to induce them to leave its service, was held not within the limits of lawful persuasion and was enjoined; Tunstall v. Coal Co., 192 Fed. 808, 113 C. C. A. 132, 41

The act of a body of workmen employed by the same master, in stopping work all together at a prearranged time, and refusing to continue until higher wages or shorter time or some other concession is granted to them by the employer. See Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (C. C-) 60 Fed. 819; Arthur v. Oakes, 63 Fed. 327, 11 C. O. A. 209, 25 Li. R. A. 414; Railroad Co. v. Bowns, 58 N. Y. 582; Longshore Printing Co. v. Howell, 26 Or. 527, 38 Pac. 547, 28 In It. A. 464, 46 Am. St. Rep. 640.

In mining law. The strike of a vein or lode is its extension in the horizontal plane, or its lengthwise trend or course with reference to the points of the compass; distinguished from its "dip," which is its slope or slant, away from the perpendicular, as it goes downward into the earth, or the angle of its deviation from the vertical plane.

1, V. See Account, 1; Balance; Bargain; Battery; Hand, 1. Strike off. See Attorney; Jury; Roll, p. 910, c. 2. Struck off. Property at auction is " struclt oflF" or "knocked down" when the auctioneer, by the fall of his hammer or by other audible or visible announcement, signifies to the bidder that he is entitled to the property on paying the amount of his bid, according to the terms of the sale.* Strike out. See Cancel. 3, n. A combination among laborers, or those employed by others, to compel an increase of wages, a change in the hours of labor, a change in the manner of conducting the business of the principal, or to enforce some particular policy in the character or number of the men employed, or the like.< > Eehberg v. New York City, 91 N. Y, 142-43 (1883), cases. Andrews, C. J.; Ironton d. Kelley, 38 Ohio St. 52 (1882); Bennett v. Fifleld, 13 E. I. 139-40 (1880), cases pi'o and con; Hanscom v. Boston, 141 Mass. 245 (1886), cases. " See street railways, generally, 15 Am. Law Eev. 330-404 (1881), cases, > Sherwood v. Eeade, 7 Hill, 439 (1844). A party, contracting to deliver a quantity of any commodity (as, coal) may provide that he shall not be liable for non-delivery in the event of a strike preventing his obtaining the article. ^ The fidelity of the employees of a railroad company is at the risk of the company. Therefore, to a suit for non-delivery of goods within time, the carrier cannot answer that the delivery was prevented by a strike, fjnl ess, perhaps, the interference come from discharged employees.*^ If a society or union bring about a strike and uphold a striker's extraordinary demand, all who participate in the action of the association are chargeable with conspiracy.^ " If A is possessed of a stone-pit, and B, intending to discredit it and deprive him of the profits, imposes so great threats upon his workmen, and disturbs all comers, tljireateniig to maim, and tex them with suits, if tljey buy stones, so that sotne desist from working, others from buying, etc., A shall have an action' upon the case against B, for the profit of his mine is thereby impaired-" * Freedom is the policy of this coimtry. But freedom doeg not imply a right in one person, alone or with others, directly or indirectly, td injure another in his lawful business, and to threaten him with annoyance or injury, for the sake of q Opipelling him to buy his peace. ^ With respect to strikes and boycotts generally, the States may be divided into (1) those in which the common law of' conspiracy alone prevails, and (2) those in "which the law is regulated by statute. Arkansas, Halifornia, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, &,nd Tennessee follow, in substance, the section (Ch. VIII, § 168, sec. 6) in the New York Code which makes it a crime "to commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to trade or commerce, or for the perversion or obstruction of justice, or of the due administration of, the laws." Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont have statutes to the effect that every person, who by himself or with others shall attempt by force, threats, or intimidation to prevent any other person from pursuing any employment he may think proper, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. In Kansas and Michigan it is a crime to combine to impede, by any act or by. means of intimidation, the regular operation of any railroad company, or other incorporation, firm, or individual; or to hinder the running of any locomotive engine, freight or passenger train, except by due process of law. It is a crime in Georgia and South Carolina for any one, knowing the fact, to persuade the servant of another to leave his employment, when such servant is under an attested contract. » [Delaware, &c. R. Co. v. Bowns, ante. 2 Blackstock v. N. Y. & Erie B. Co., 30 N. Y. 43 (1859); Cooley, Torts, 640. 3 Commonwealth u Curren, 3 Pittsb. 143 (Pa., 1869). * Bacon, Abridg. Actions on the Case, F., Bouv. ed. p. 119; Gwillim's ed. of 1797. In Alabama, Missouri, and Wisconsin an overt act is necessary to constitute a conspiracy a crime, except when a felony is the object. In Indiana it is a crime to conspire to commit a felony. In Colorado and Maine it has been made a crime to conspire to indict a person, or to do any other unlawful act. In Delaware any railroad employee who, to aid, incite, or encourage a strike, shall abandon any train before it reaches its destination, or shall refuse lo move the cars of another company, such company's employees then being on a strike, or if any person in aid of a strike shall molest or obstruct a railroad employee engaged in the discharge of his duty, or destroy the traisk, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania allow employees to combine to leave their employment, and to use peaceable means to pereuade others to leave their employers. ■ See Boycotting; Carrier; Combination, 2; Obstruct, 2; Riot; Trades-unions.