The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-11-28

n
members of the unincorporated ass5cia-
ton known as the Brotherhood Of Rail-
| way Trainnen. A rule was adopted by
| the railway company In the year 1887,
land has since been maintained by it
and by the receivers, to the effect that
no one would be employed in its service
who was a member of such an associa-
| ton unless he would agree to withdraw
therefronl.
| Levi Hicks was employed as a brake
man on October 90 1893. The estab-
lished form Of application, representing
that the applicant was not a member
| of any labor organization or that If
such a member he would withdraw
itherefr0m, was presented to him for
| signature, but he then declined to state
whether or not he was a member of
lsuch organiza ton and thereupon he was
employed by a subordinate agent of the
receivers and without their knowledge
or that of the genral superintendent.
On or before August l, 1884, he was
notified that unless he gave up his
membership sin the brotherhood he
would be discharged, He still retained
both his membership and his employ
ment and on October s, the day on
which its original petition was filed and
after it had been presented. the
general superintendent had an inter-
view with others of the employees at
Which no threats was made of dis
charge, but reference was made to the
agreements under which the man had
|enteTed the service of the company and
the rules Of the company and they did
agree to withdraw. The proposed
discharge of George S. Riley has no
connection with his membership in the
Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, but
is caused solely by his failure to salts
factOrily perform his dutipS
The circumstances disclosed I'M the
case of Levi Hicks. do not entitle him
ito the interposition of a court Of equity
on his behalf Without animadverting
upon his participation in the equivocal
and exceptional means by which he
secured his present employment ID may
at least be said that his assumption
that the fact that he so secured en-
pleyment imposes upon the receivers an
obligation to retain him in it ought not
to be sustained.
The purpose to discharge Mr.. Hicks
unless he would resign from the asso-
citation was communicated to him about
two months prior to October s, and his
promise of that day was given simply
in the exercise of his right of election
between the alternatives which had
been previously presented to his choice.
The fact is he did agree to sever his
though in making his selection hes was
doubtless confronted by a dilemma it
was obvious that he was not in any
legal sense subjected to compulsion.
But it is not necessary that L should,
and l do not rest my Judgment upon
this tardy agreement:
1t us at least certain, by making it.
Mr.. Hicks acquired no better position
than he obtained before and without
7 m of nf1,io
ceivers would have been justified in
Diminishing him upon grounds peculiar
TO him, and wholly irrespective of the
broad question which he has attempted
to obtrude into his case. 1t results that
the petitioner Hicks has not made out
case emitting him to the relief which
he seeks, and 1t IS even more manifest
terly devoid of equity"
Judge Dallas then takes up the
Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, and
saws:
THE real question, however, is not
whether the Brotherhood OF Railway
Trainmen is or is not inimical to the
general welfare, but whether these re-
ceivers should be ordered to retain its
members in their services despite the
company's pre-existing rule to the con-
trary, and against their own unani-
nous judgment
THAT the contemplated action is not
unlawful is too plain for argument.
That 1t contraveneS public policy is
asserted. But how can this be estab-
lished? I know Of no means of ascer-
tanning the policy of the public in rela
ton to personal rights, but by consult
ing the public laws. This particular
association is not corporation; but if
it was it would not follow, as seems
to be supposed. that it would rightful-
ly insist upon the retention of its mem
bers in the service of another corpora
ton against its WILL