Summary
In Gilchrist Co. v. Metal Polishers, N.J.Ch., 113 A. 320, the union was enjoined from ordering a strike in violation of the contract. Master Weavers Institute v. Associated, etc., Silk Workers, 116 N.J.Eq. 502, 174 A. 437, is a similar case, although the injunction was denied.
Summary of this case from Christiansen v. Local 680 of Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees of N.J.Opinion
05-12-1919
GILCHBIST CO. v. METAL POLISHERS, BUFFERS & PLATERS LOCAL UNION NO. 44 OF METAL POLISHERS INTERNATIONAL UNION et al.
Pitney, Hardin & Skinner and A. F. Skinner, all of Newark, for complainant. Henry Carless, of Newark, for defendants.
"Not to be officially reported."
Suit by the Gilchrist Company against the Metal Polishers, Buffers & Platers Local Union No. 44 of the Metal Polishers International Union, and others. Restraint contained in order to show cause continued; other restraint continued until final hearing.
Pitney, Hardin & Skinner and A. F. Skinner, all of Newark, for complainant.
Henry Carless, of Newark, for defendants.
LANE, V. C. (orally). As I announced at the conclusion of the oral argument, the only question of fact to be determined is as to whether the contract between complainant and the union expires May 2d or May 29th. The contract must be construed precisely the same as contracts between individuals. There is only one piece of written evidence in the case, and that is the letter sent by the Gilchrist Company to the union, in which it is distinctly stated that the contract is to be considered for a period of one year from the date of the letter. That letter asked for a reply in writing. A reply was not so delivered, but it is conceded that the union accepted the terms proposed by the company in the letter with respect to compensation, and the men have worked under the arrangement set out in the letter from May 29, 1918 to May 2, 1919. It is stated by defendants that, at the time complainant company, through its president, was advised of the acceptance of the terms contained in the letter by the men, he was likewise informedthat the agreement should date from May 2d, and it is upon this oral testimony that the contention of the defendants is rested.
Where a proposal is made in writing, and that proposal accepted orally or by action thereunder, the inference is that all of the terms are accepted, and the burden is on the one who asserts the contrary to clearly prove his case.
The contract was for a valid consideration; the company proposed as a condition that there should be no further labor troubles, in which the unions would be a party, for a period of one year from the date of the letter, to advance wages. That letter, or the contract evidenced by that letter, of" course, might have been altered by oral understandings between the parties, but it would need clear and convincing proof to induce the court to hold that it was so altered where it appears, as it does, that the terms of the letter favorable to the union were accepted by it. This proof I am unable to find in the papers before me. Complainant distinctly drew to the attention of the defendant union that the inducing cause, or one of the persuasive inducing causes, of its action, was its desire that the contract should continue for one year from the date of the letter. It is also slightly significant that the wage increase as contemplated by the letter did not go into actual full effect until May 29, 1918. For the interregnum" between May 2d and May 29th an arrangement was made, providing for an increase of wages at a flat rate, the purpose of both parties undoubtedly being to arrive at a rate which would approximate, as nearly as may be, the rate provided for by the contract. My conclusion is that the contract between the employer and employees does not expire until the 29th of May.
Now, with respect to enjoining the International Union. It appears, either from the proofs or from the statements of counsel in open court, that the International Union is composed of the representatives of the locals, and that one of its functions, if not its main function, is to lend aid and assistance by advice, by moral support, and by money to locals who are engaged in a justifiable strike. Leary, a resident of this state, is a vice president of the International Union, and has participated in some of the negotiations between the company and its employees as such representative, and has, as such representative, advised with the local unions. It seems to me that, for the purpose of this preliminary restraint, the International Union is sufficiently within the jurisdiction of this court to permit the award of an injunction against it in so far as its anticipated activities in respect to this particular proposed strike is concerned. There is great force in the argument of counsel for complainant that this unincorporated organization, with its headquarters in Cleveland, cannot be permitted, through its agents, to come into this district and advise with employees, aid and assist employees, without rendering it and its agents amenable to the process of the courts in this district.
I will continue the restraint contained in the order to show cause until the 29th day of May, and the restraint with respect to what has been called boycotting in this case will be continued until final hearing, or the further order of the court.
What I have said must be taken in connection with what I said at the conclusion of the oral argument.