RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.
[Full reports of this case may be obtained of the West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., for 25 cents.] Right to Keep Blacklist of Ex-employees.
THE action of the Western Union Telegraph Company, in discharging all employees who were members of the Commercial Telegraphers' Union, resulted in the filing of a bill in equity by members of the union, alleging that the company, its officers and agents, unlawfully combined and confederated together to destroy the union, and by threats, etc., are interfering with their employees because they have joined the union, and that they are seeking to prevent the discharged employees from obtaining other employment as telegraph operators. Judge Rogers, after consideration of this case, reported as Boyer v. W. U. Tel. Co., 124 Federal Reporter, 246, dismissed the bill for want of equity. He holds that there can be no such thing as an unlawful conspiracy to destroy a labor union by refusing to employ its members, or in discharging them “for any reason or for no reason,” in the absence of a contract for employment for a definite time. The case would be the same if the men were discharged because they were Odd Fellows or belonged to the Presbyterian Church or the Grand Army of the Republic. It would be intolerable for a court of equity to compel a man to serve another against his will, or to compel one to employ persons he did not want. The court holds further that an employer may keep in a book the names of employees discharged because they were members of a labor union, and may invite inspection of this book by other employers, even tho the latter therefore refuse to hire the discharged employees. The court refers to a number of interesting cases on the subject. Rights of Unions and Employers.
In disposing of a motion to dissolve an injunction restraining members of a union from interfering with an employer in the conduct of his business, by persuading or inducing others not to deal with him, Vice Chancellor Pitney summarizes, in the following brief form, certain of the contentions between capital and labor which he states are now quite well settled: First. That all sorts of laborers may lawfully combine and form unions for their mutual benefit, and that they may use all lawful means to promote their own interests, being careful in so doing not to infringe upon the rights of others. Second. One lawful means to that end is the refusal to work on terms offered by the employer. Third. An unlawful means is to hinder or prevent others from working for an employer under such terms as they shall see fit. Fourth. One means of such hindering and preventing is in various ways to render it either difficult or uncomfortable for such willing workmen so to work. This is an unlawful means. Fifth. Another unlawful means in common use to hinder or prevent willing employees from working and to compel employers to accede to terms which they would not otherwise adopt is the boycott in its various forms. The defendants in this case, being that of Martin v. McFall, 55 Atlantic Reporter, 465, denied that they were doing any of these unlawful acts, and asked for the dissolution of the injunction, to which the Vice Chancellor philosophically replies that, if they do not intend to do the things forbidden by the restraining order, the order will do them no harm.