The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1904-01-16
| MEMBERS MUST LIVE
UP TO LAWS Of UNION
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK
DEFINES RIGHTS OF UNIONS,
Important Decision for Union. Labor
Handed Down BY Court In Which
the Right Of a Union to Compel Its
Members to abide by Its Laws.
Courts Cannot Interfere In Such
Cases.

Albany, N. Y, Jan'y 14-A most
important decision, settling finally the
right of unions to compel strict COM
pliance with their constitutions and
bylaws, and otherwise Of great inter-
a New York court recently. The case
was that Of two former union men
against Stereotypers' Union No. I.
Supreme Court Justice Leventritt
decided that Louis Quanchi and Chas.
A. Bales are not entitled to an injunc-
ton restraining the New York Stereo-
typers' Union No. l and it's officers
from interfering with their employ
| ment on the New York Herald or from
demanding that the Herald discharge
them. Quanchi has been superintend-
ent Of the Herald's stereotyping de-
partment for seventeen years, and
Bales was his assistant. Some time
ago thehy discharged James J. Freel, a
stereotyper, On charge of general
| incompetency, and Freel then made
charges against them before the union,
accusing them Of malice and persecu-
ton and Of having plotted to cause his
discharge. Quanchi and Baily were
notified to appear before the union,
and their request for an adjournment
was overruled. They were summarily
tried and expelled on the recommended
tion of the executive committee of the
union.
George 6. Aillnger, president Of the
| union, then called at the Herald office
and demanded the discharge Of the
two men as non-union workers.. In
! view of the fact that strike would
| certainely be called in the Herald shop
| if the men continued to work, the
| Herald notified the men that they
would not be allowed to work, but that
| their pay would be continued until
| the legality of the unions action could
be determined. Quanchi and Bales
| got out temporary injunction re-
straining the union from interfering
with them, and Justice Leventritt was
asked to make this injunction perma-
nent. In denying that application JUS
tice Leventritt says:
TT is not disputed that the rule in
regard to, voluntary associa tons Of this
/ charaetersss be ;cpnyti itttfan and
i<lx
T the relations between tl1e #a assoeia atiomn 81
and its members, and that the. courts
! cannot redress any action of the asso-
citation expelling or furnishing a mem
ber when such actions has been taken
in accordance with the express pro-
visions Of the constitution and bylaws
| individuals who form themselves
together In a voluntary association for
a common object may agree to be
| governed by such rules as they think
proper to adopt, if there is nothing in
them to conflict with the law of the
land, and those who become members
of the body are presumed to know
them, to have assented to them, and
they are bound by them. In this case
| at bar every provision of the constitu-
| ton and bylaws to which the plaintiffs
subscribed was duly complied with
| and, although the punishment Of ex-
pulsion inflicted seems out of all pro-
portion to the offense charged, I am
poWerless to interfere. After their
| expulsion the notification to their en-
ployer that the members Of the asso-
citation Of which the defendant is pres
| ident would not work with the non
| members was lawful. I am constrained
! to deny both motions, and have nc
alternative but to vacate the prelimi-
| nary Injunction"