Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1905-07-05
LABOR DECISION
OF IMPORTANCE
UNIONS CAN NOT DRIVE NON
UNIoNIsTs FROM WORK.
M, F. BERRY WINS CASE
Massachusetts Supreme Court De-
cisiVely Rules Against Procuring
the Discharge Of Man Merely
Because He ie acknowledgements
sion and Coercion Forbidden.

An important and far-reaching de-
eision was sent down by the full bench
of the state supreme court at Boston.
! Last week in the case of Michael F.
Berry against Jerry e. Donovan, in
which it is hell that labor unions and
their members are not justified in law
il, procuring the discharge of a fellow
workman because the was not a mem.
Der of their union, in an attempt by
them to obtain or advantages of their
| labor union contract with his AMI their
employer Berry, a nonunion shoe
maker, sued Donovan. a member and
officer of the boot and shoework-
ers' union, for damages for pro-
curing his discharge from employment
by Hazen B. Goodrich & Co. of Haver-
hill, because he was rot one of the
union. The firm hal, in January, made
q contract with the union not to en-
ploy any except it's members, and
not to retain in their employ any one
Objectionable to the union Very soon
after the contract was made Donovan
asked for Berry's discharge.
Berry recovered a verdict for 1900
against Donovan at the trial, and he is
held entitled to collect upon it because
Donovan's action was an unlawful
and unjustifable interference with
Berry's right to employment with the
firm, even though the concern could
discharge him at mere will, he not
having had any written or oral con-
tract for any definite period. DON
ovan had claimed his action was JUS
titled because he acted in furtherance
Of the contract made by the union with
the firm. He based this upon the
ground that his action was kind of
competition between union help on
the one side and nonunion on the
other, or between employees on the
one hand and employers on the other.
But the court holds that his action or
object was not competition, but mon
opOly, which is against the policy of
the law and uniustifable.
Labor unions are held to have no
right to drive men out of employment
because they choose to work indie
pendently without joining a union.
Relative to the last kind Of competi-
ton, as justification for the defend
ants action. The court says in its
opinion: THE gain which a labor
union may expect to derive from Undue
iGg others TO join it is not an improve
ment to be obtained directly in the
conditions under which the men are
working, but only added strength for
such con ests with employers as Tnay
arise in Che future An object Of
cred a benefit in business, such as
would Justify the infection of inten-
tional injury upon a thiri person for
the purpose of obtaining it. If such
an object were treated as legitimate
and allowed to be pursued to it's COM
plete accomplishment every employee
would be forced into membership in a
union, and the unions by a combina-
ton of those in different trades and
occupado' would have complete and
absolute control of all the industries
of the country. Employers would be
forced to yield to all their demands, or
give up business.
The attainment of such an object
in the struggle with employers would
lot be competition, but monopoly a
monopoly controlling anything which
he world must have is fatal to pros
perity and progress. In matters of
this kind the law does not tolerate
monopolies. The attempt to force all
labOrers to combine in unions is
against the policy Of the law. because
1t aims at monopoly. 1t therefore