The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-04-10
NEED NOT RECOGNIZE UNION.
rvpIOyER VINO AFFRONTED AN
lGEyJ GETS INJUNCTION.
The Appellate Division Unanimously Up
holds the Employer whom tho Paint
ers' Union Tried 20 Ruin for Net
RecoEnizing Their walking Delegate.

aecoxnizing Their watkins Delegate.
The Appellate Division Of the Supreme
Court handed down q decision yesterday
.hch. in effect, says that an employers
failure to show proper respect for q walk
inc delegate doesn't Justify union In ruin
ing his business.
The case was that OF John Beatty, master
FAINTER at 245 West Forty-sixth street
his ci, v, against David Callahan and Joseph
= Healey, the president and walking dele
cate Of the Amalgamated Painters and
Decorators
nv a unanimous decision, the five Justices
n, the Appellate Division not only reversed
the Judgment OF Justice O'Ciorman In the
Supreme Court, refusing Beatty q per-
manent Injunction, but they also greatly
limit the application Of the decision In the
National Protective Association vs.. Cum
ming, which labor organizations have re-
lied on in opposing applications for in
functions against strikes.
The facts in the case were these Beatty
IN the summer OF 1901 had painting and
decorating contracts on q building at os7
fifth avenue and on the Church OF the New
Jerusalem in East Thirty-fifth street. He
union wages. He had no trouble with the
union until Healey secured an order for
some money from one of the workman en-
ployed by Beatty. This man was dis
Charged by Beatty before the order was pre-
sented. Beatty refused to honor the order
or TO recognize Healey, and the latter
notified the union that he had been in
suited by Beatty. Then the war was on,
and within few weeks the union had COM
PEELED the contractors for the two buildings
10 break their contracts with Beatty.
Beatty obtained a temporary injunction
from the Supreme Court, which was vacated
by that court. but restored by the Appellate
Division. On the hearing OF the appica-
ton TO make the injunction permanent
Justice O'Gorman decided against the
plaintiff on the strength OF the Cumming
case. which upheld the right OF q union TO
with members Of a rival body, Justice
Mclaughlin wrote the opinion handed down
yesterday. In part he says:
The sole question il whet Their the defendants,
because the plaintiff would not In formal
slegcd afiront to its walk ing delegate. have
the right to maliciously cause parties who
have entered into contracts with him 20 de-
to cause. or by actually causing, a strike
Of all the workmen in the employ Of such
ps.i, and IhSt
appeal from the order vacattns the preiimi.
nary Injunction. the court then saying that
tie case furnished mo authority for resort
to fraud, Intimidation. force or threats
This, 1.-THE breaking of the contractsl was
done, and In the future 10 threatened 70 be
done, not because the plaintiff refused to en-
ploy union labor. or to pay union wages.
but simply be cause-accordinR 70 the unoon-
tradcted testimony Of the defendant Gala
nan-the plaintiff refused to recognize the
represe ntative Of the union or the union In
any way"
fhe methods here employed to compel the
plaintiff to accede to the demands OF the
defendants are unjust unreasonable. and
such as the law does not reco gnize and will
not tolerate. Az we'll might the Defendants
resort to physical force to enforce ALE ged
rights or redrss 81 real or imaginary wrongs;
il clearly appears that they were actuated
by improper motives and by q malicious
d. sire TO inJure the plaintiff And this being
90, the plaintiff was entitled 70 relief, within
sll the authorities to which our attention has
been called.
The jud gment appealed from must Be re-
versed and q new trial ordered
Joseph Fettretch, counsel for Beatty,
said last evening that his client would
win il the case goes to the Court OF Ape ais
il is probable that q suit for damages will
be brought against the Amalgamated
Painters ard Decorators Union.