The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1904-02-27
NATIONAL IRON CO.
DENIED AN INJUNCTION

Judge Dibell in the district court yes
| terday filed an order denying the ap-
pllcatlon of the National Iron company
Tor an Injunction direct against Gustav
"A. RakoWsky and other members of the
local iron moulders union and the order
| to show cause why the defendants
should not be restrained frominterfering
with the plaintiff is discharged The
court holds that the strikers have not
trespassed upon the premises of the
plaintiff company and have not threat
ened or attempted to intimidate en-
Ployes OF the company from performing
duties in the plant
In memorandum attached to the or
either Of its own violation or upon COM
! pulston, and from a legal standpoint it
matters not which, increased the pay of
It's moulders from 80 per hour to 33112s
| cents per hour, or, to state it different
ly, nine-hour day was substituted for
| a ten-hour day without a change Of
! daily wages.
! "On October 5, 1908, the plaintiff in
| creased the minimum scale of wages
for moulders to 80 cents per hour, the
| new scale of wage to be effective from
! Oct, II, 1903, intending as it claims to
| make distinction between it's individ-
| ual employees upon the basis of merit
scale to those who by reason of their
superior efficiency could earn it.
"About Oct. g. 1903, some three or
four of the eleven answering defend
ants were discharged, one had been dis
charged before the others quit work
Oct 20.
1.-THE plaintiff seeks temporary in
junction against the doing Of certain
things which it claims the defendants
have been doing, and it's claims in this
respect may be summarized somewhat
as follows:
IL. That the defendants have die
tated the amount of work which should
thus have decreased his production be-
low that of a fair days work.
w. That they have prevented trades
men from selling to it's employees the
| necessaries Of life
g. That they have trespased upon
the plant of the plaintiff for the pur-
pose of interfering with it's workmen,
to quit its employ.
4: That they have deferred the
worknen of the plaintiff from the per-
Torrance of their work and have in
duced them to leave it's employ by
threats and intimidation.
IS. That they have intimidated and
prevented the keepers of hotels and
boarding houses from furnishing &C
Communications for it's employees.
THE first claim Is met by a denial
as broad as the claim; besides, if the
claim were true and if equity could
grant relief based upon such claim,
the defendants are no longer in the en-
ploy of the plaintiff and cannot now do
what 1t is sought to enjoin them from
doing.
1.-THE second claim is met by a fair
denial and no relief can be based upon
''The third claim is the one upon
which the restraining order contained
in the order to show cause was based.
If the acts were as claimed, a temper
airy injunction should issue; but it seems
that the entering into the plaintiffs
plant by it's former employees was per-
missive, not prohibited by it, was U.s.
ually for fair business purposes and ap-
parently no interference of consequence
was. attempted and no unlawful tres
pass is: now threatened.s The restrain
'The fourth, and fifth claims are the
ones on which counsel for the plaintiff
chiefly reply; and these two claims may
be considered together. 49,.
1.-THE right. of the employees to quit
work, either singly or in a body, for the
purpose Of increasing their wages or
preventing their reduction, or other
any other reason, or for no reason at
all, is questioned. IT, in quitting they
violate an existing contract of employ
ment for some definite period they are
liable in damages in just the same way
as any other, party is liable for the
breach of his contract; but equity will
not enjoin quitting of employment al
though by quitting the employee commits
a breach Of his contract"
The court refers to the visit of the
strikers to the proprietor of the Muir
ray hotel in West Duluth and says that
they were wholly wrong in their efforts
to intimidate him by threatening to
boycott him and that Murray was right
in refusing to listen to them.
THE attitude of Murray is in pleas
ing CONTRAST, says the court, with
that of one or two other hotel keepers
who, so the affidavit read, declared that
they would receive no strike break
ers even before any request was made
of them" =
The court holds that If there was any
intimidation it was directed against
Crockett and Pickard, two strike-b break
ers who came here to go to work, but
he says that the affidavit of. Crockett
is fairly met by affidavits Of the strik-
ers and he is inclined to think that
Crockett might have exaggerated to
some extent in making his statements.
The plaintiff in the suit was repre-
sented by Washburn & Bailey and the
defendants by Adams & Miller.