Summary
In Thompson v. Boekhout (273 N.Y. 390), where the proprietor of a small picture theater employing only one man discharged his single employee before a strike was called, there was no employment existing at the time of the strike, hence no "labor dispute."
Summary of this case from Baillis v. FuchsOpinion
Argued March 3, 1937
Decided March 23, 1937
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Norman A. O'Brien for appellants. Jeremiah T. Mahoney and William E. Goldman for International Longshoremen's Association et al., amici curiae. Nicholas J. Weldgen for respondent.
The application of section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act is confined to injunctions in cases "involving or growing out of a labor dispute." The Legislature has in the same section defined "labor disputes." That definition makes clear the intent of the Legislature to subject injunctions issued in disputes involving or growing out of the relations of employer and employee to special regulations deemed appropriate to the nature of such disputes. Where the owner of a small business seeks to avoid "labor disputes" as defined in the statute, by running his business without any employees, an attempt to induce or coerce him to hire an employee or employees, upon terms and conditions satisfactory to persons associated in such attempted inducement or coercion is not a "labor dispute" within the letter or spirit of the statutory definition. We hold that the statute has no application in this case. For that reason we do not consider the respondent's contention that the statute is not valid.
The order should be affirmed, with costs, and the question certified answered in the affirmative.
CRANE, Ch. J., LEHMAN, O'BRIEN, HUBBS, LOUGHRAN, FINCH and RIPPEY, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed, etc.