Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1905-07-05


with the employment of another. nm.
less III the exercise of some right OF
MS own, which the law respects. His
viii so to interfere for his own graft
hcauon is not such right. The Judge
LETT to tho jury the question whether
IN view OF all the circumstances. the
Interference was or was not for
Jds1tiable cause. If the PLAINTIFFS
habits, or conduct, or character had
been such as to render him an unfit
associate, in the shop, for ordinary
workmen of good character, that
would have been sufficient reason
for interference in behalf OF his shop
mates. We can conceive of other good
reasons. But the evidence tended to
show that the only reason for procur-
ing his discharge was his refusal to
join the union.
he only argument that we have
heard IL support of interference by la.
Dor unions IL cases of this kind is
that it is iustiGa5ie as a kind of COM
petition. 1t is true that fair competi-
ton in business brings persons into
rivalry, and often justifies action for
ones self which interferes with proper
action of another Such action, on
both sides, is the exercise by connect
lag persons of equal conflicting rights.
The principle appealed to would
Justify member of the union. who
was seeking employment for himself, In
ma king an offer to serve on such
| terms as would result, and as he knew
would result, in the discharge of the
plaintiff ty his employer, to make
place for the newcomer. Such an
offer, for such purpose, would be un,
Objectionable. 1t would be merely the
exercise Of a personal rigdt, equal in
importance TO the plailtife's right But
an interference by a coordination of
persons, to obtain the discharge of a
workman because ne refuses to COM
ply with their wishes, for their advan-
tae, in some matter in wlicn he has a
right to act Independently, is not COM
petition
In such a case the action taken by
the combination is not in the regular
course of their business as employees,
either in the service in which they are
engaged, or in an effort to obtain en-
ployment in other service. The re
suit which they seek to obtain cannot
come directly from anything that they
do within the regular line of their
business as workers competing in the
labor market 1t can only come from
action outside of the province of work
ing men, intended directly to injure
another, for the purpose of compelling
MIN to submit to their iictation. 1t
is difficult to see how the object to be
gained can come within the field of
fair competition If we consider /,
il reference OF the right f employees
to compete with one another, Undue
ing person to join a union has no
tendency to aid them in such competi-
tion. Indeed, the object of organiza-
tions of this kind is not to make
competition of employees with one an
other more easy or successful. 1t is
rather by association to prevent such
competition, to bring all 10 equality
and to make them act together in
common interest. Plainly, then, in
reference with one working under
contract. with a view to compel him
to join a union, cannot be justified as
part of the competition of workmen
with one another
We have long had a statute forbid
ling the coercion or compulsion by
any person Of any other person into
written or verbal agreement not to
ifjIEa az db3afGfia2mea as condition of his
securing employment or continuing
IN the employment of such person
! I he same principle would justify
prohibition of the coercion or compul-
sion of person into a writer, or yer.
| bal agreement to join such an oTsaniza-
ton as a condition OF his securing
employment of another. We hold that
the defendant was not justified by the
contract with Goodrich & Co or by his
relations to the plaintiff in interfering
with the plaintiffs employment under
his contract. How far the principles
we adopt would apply, unier different
conceivable forms of contract, to an
interference with q workman not en-
gagged, but seeking employment, or to
different methods of boycotting, we
have no occasion in this case to de-
eide Defendants exceptions are over
ruled"