The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1901-06-01
CA rs I
INJUNcrIoN ISSUED NJ u AAssA,
81 CHussETTs COURT.
Courts eReasonine il Plausible, Hut
Labor should Jealously Guara tho
Right to Strike-The Injunction ID
an "Enterinx WedEe'' to Something
worse-LaboP Asks mo- Special Ex-
emption or PRIVILEGES.

have often pointed with pride" to the
legal recognition Of the right TO strike.
In the United States, we have been
told in and out Of season. the freedom
Of the workman to quit his employer is
unqualified and unabridged. And 1t is
true that strikes are legal In this coun-
try. and that no legislature would have
the hardihood to restrict them by ex-
press statutory provision. But are we
quite safe from judicial tyranny, from
extension of the injunction" abuse to
strikes? If we have laid this fiattering
JUNCTION to our souls, q recent decision
rendered by Judge Bradley of the Sup
erior Court at Boston, Mass, Is calcu-
lated to shock and undeceive US. This
judge has granted an injunction re-
straining organized workmen from
quitting their employment. .ee--, /. ~
The circumstances are rather exccp-
tional, and the courts reasoning plaust-
BILE, but In this very plausibility there
is danger. The entering wedge" the
first step is that of which we must te-
ware il. we would jealously guard the
right to strike. W.
The facts in the case referred to are
as Follows: The Massachusetts Brew
cries Company, a concern which oper-
ates nine breweries, entered into an
agreement with local union No. Of tho
International Brotherhood Of Station
ary F1remen regarding the relations be-
tween itself and It's fireraea and engl-
neers. Among the sttpulations of this
contract was the privilege Of the COM
pany, in case of slack business, to lay
off workmen for every other week.
for the submission Of all disputes to ar
bitration. This agreement originally
formed in 1896, has been renewed from
time to time, and by Its terms, could
not be disregarded by either party ex-
cept upon three months. notice before
the LIST Of April Of each year
Some time ago., the contract being in
force, the company laid off one engineer
and one fireman for one week at a time.
This it claimed the right to do. under
the contract. The local union disputed
the propriety of the action and refused
to submit the issue to arbitration.
Whether it was right or wrong in as
Stunning this position, we shall not dis
\
but for the sake Of the argument let
it be granted that the company was in
the right and the union guilty of an at
tempt to evade or violate its part OF
the agreement. What follows:
This: that the company was entitled
to do what any man or corporation
does in q similar situation, i namely,
proceed against the union or those Off
GERS who had made the agreenlc or
their successors for legal or other re-
parati0n. But the c4 Enpany did not
adopt this course. 1t5applied to court
Of equity forsan injunction restraining
the officers Of the union. and their
agents from in any way or manner
ordering or causing the firemen,s or any
OF them. employed by. the plaintiff, to
leave their employment, and from en-
terfering, combining, conspiring or ct
tempting to interfere with the employ
ment OF firemen and engineers by the
plaintiff, and from any scheme or con-
spiracy among themselves or with 9TH
ers to annoy, hinder, interfere with or
prevent any f1remen or engineers con-
tinuing in the employ Of the plaintiff"
and the court issued the Injunction. It
found that the company was adhering
to the contract and the union proros-
ing to repudiate it; and it further
found that the damages from the
threatened strike would be very large,
and the union financially unable to pay
them to the plaintiff. Hence, there be-
Ing no remedy at law, the court decid-
ed to prevent the threatened breach Of
the contract by prohibiting the strike.
/ Now, let it be distinctly understood
that the American Federation of La
Dor believes in the strict fulfi,lment If
agreements concluded between work
men and. employers The demand for
recognition of and strict dealing with
unions is based on the principle Of per-
feet good faith in carrying out assumed
obligations. But this does not commit
us to approval or liberation IT the use
Of injunctions to enforce contracts and
prohibit strikes. ,
Specific performance of contracts is
never enforced by equity where there is
an adequate remedy at law. It is not
at all ciear that In t.s case under re-
view tire was no adequate remedy.
That the damages from a strike would
be very large Is not sufficient ground
for an Injunction. DID, the company
prove this allegation? In the nature Of
things 1t could not possibly know how
large the damages would be. Had the
strike taken place and had the company
succeeded in promptly 1. replacing the
o. {lRS