The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-08-18
Western Union Employees Can Be
Discharged at the Com
pany's Discretion.
BLACKLIST IS NOT UNLAWFUL.
Federal Court Holds That in the
Absence of a Contract Each Par
ty Has an Equal Right to
Sever Relations.

Judge John H. Rogers of the Western Dis
trict of Arkansas. sitting for Judge Elmer
B. Adams, in an opinion handed down yes
terday in the United States Circuit Court.
denied the petition of Arthur L. Boyer and
other members of local lodge No. 3. Com
mercial Telegraphers' Union of America.
asking that the Western Union Telegraph
Company be enjoined from discharsing
members of the union and from maintain
ing blacklist OF those who the company
had discharged.
|. The cornplainarits. in the petition filed
June 81. alleged that the Western Union
Company had discharged. without cause.
Arthur l. Boyer and several other tele-
graphers solely on the ground that they
were members of the telegraphers' union.
and that the Western Union. by a course OF
intimidation and coercion. was unlawfully
.conspiring to destroy the union and for this
purpose was maintaining a blacklist. which
prevented discharged employees from secur-
ing and earning livelihood for themselves
and families.
The company demurred to the petition on
On the general ground that there was no
equity in the bill.
The first cause OF complaint In the petit
ton was that the company had discharged
plaintiffs without notice from the service
because they We're members of the union.
Inc court held that an employer in the
absence OF contract relations. has the right
to discharge any employee with or without
notice at any time and that the same right
TO quit the service of an employer Is ac-
c0roeu the employe.
SEEK TO DESTROY UNION.
The second ground of complaint was that
the defendant. its officers and agents have
uhlaWfuliy combined and confederated to
destroy the telegraphers union.
The court in its opinion stated:
4 need not take time to multiply author
tiles to show that there is no such thing in
law as conspiracy to do an unlawful
thing.
III the last allegation means anything, it
Is tnat the defendants, Its officers and
agents have conspired to destroy the union
by discharging all of its members in its
employ and refusing to employ others sole
~ because they were members Of the union.
But the plaintiffs say that the defend-
ant its officers and agents are seeking TO
prevent those discharged from obtaining
employment as telegraphers. But how are
they seeking to do so? What are they. do
ing? Are they doing acts that are unlaw-
full? If so. what are they?
There are allegations in the complaint
between the p.aintiffs and the defend hit to
retain the plaintiffs in its service II any
given period.
Yet. in the event that such contract ex-
edy is at law for a breach of contract. and
each man injured must sue separately, in
his own right, for any damage sustained.
1T would be intolerable II man could
be compelled by court of equity to serve
another against his will, or 4 a man could
be compelled to retain in his employ one
he does not want.
In denying the power Of a court of equity
to enjoin the Western Union Telegraph
Company from maintaining blacklist the
court said:
Suppose that a man should ale bill
alleging that he belonged to the Honorable
and Ancient Order of Freemasons or to
the Presbyterian Church. or to the Grand
Army OF the Republic; that his employer
had discharged him solely on that account:
that he discharged others in his employ
and intended TO discharge all of them for
some reason: that he kept book contain
ing all the names of such discharged per
sons and entered opposite the name Of each
discharged person the fact that he had
been discharged solely on the ground that
he belonged TO such organization and that
he had given such information to others
who refused to employ such persons oil that
ground.
as it possible court Of equity could
grant relief? If so. on what ground? And
yet this is a parallel case to that made by
the bill"
teen days to file an amended bill Of com
plant.