The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-11-20
Restricting strikes.

The state OF Massachusetts through
its highest cour has just made another
valuable contribution to the law of
organized labor in the case Of ROBERT
II. PICKETT and others, plaintiffs, against
one WALSH and others. defendants.
I PICKETT and his associates in the action
sought an injunction against the defend
ants from cOnspu-ing in any way 10
compel abe firm of l.. p. Soule and Son
Company ia discharge the compliments.
The injunction also sought to prevent
the defendants from making the wne
of the Ford Building, in Ashburton place,
Boston. break their contract with PICK
EFT. The defendants were officers of
two uni%ncorporated bricklayers' unions
and one stone masOns' union. These
associations were also made parties
defendant.
An executive committee Of two of
these unions voted on July %, 1905, that
beginning September IS, 1905, no MEM
Der of the bricklayers' and masons'
unions of Boston and vicinity will work
on any building where the contractor
will not agree to have the pointing done
by bricklayers OF masons." This reso-
luton was adopted. In September, 1905,
the firm of J.. ID. Wellcutt h Son,
general contractors. received notice that
il they failed to discharge the pointers
on their buildings a strike of all the
bricklayers and masons on their build
ings in Boston would at once follow.
Similar notices were given by the
defendant WALSH and other walking
delegates TO the L. P. Soule and Son
Company and others. The SOule concern
had a contract with PICKETT, the plain
tiff, for pointing work. Mr.. SOLE re-
fused TO be b~rowbeaten and a strike was
called.
The Supreme Court considers a mum
Der of points in its decision, and holds
that a restraining order Of this kind an
not be made against an unincorporated
association, which is not a legal entity.
II also finds that the acts of the defend
ants were not due TO a reckless, wan
ton and malicious disregard of the rights
of the plaintiffs and others engaged in
the business of pointing. IL makes an
interesting distinction on the peculiar
facts of the case at bar in denying relief
on one branch of the application. Judge
LoRING says:
a." The result Is harsh on The contractors, who
prefer to give the work 10 the pointers because,
nrst. the pointers dodt by contract On which case
the contractors escape the liability incident to tho
relation Of employer and employee): because.
a., - ,,t,1. sN.a 81. ,oI.,.s.
do the work better. and II not well done the build
ing may be permanently injured by acid: and,
thirdly. because they get from the pointers better
work with less liability at n smaller cost, Again,
80 far RS the pointers who cannot lay brick or stone,
are concerned the result Is disastrous. But all
that the labor unions have done Is to say YOU must
employ US Cor all the work or none OF II. They
have not said that II YOU employ the pointers you
must pay Us a nnc. . They have not under
taken to forbid the contractors employing pointers.
SO far as the labor unions are concerned they can
employ pointers II they choose. but II the con-
tractors choose TO give the work Of pointing the
BRICKS and stones to others Inc unions take the
stand that the contractors will have to get some
one else to lay them. The effect OF this in the case
at bar seems to be that the contractors arc forced
against their will to give the work of pointing TO
the masons and bhcklAyers."
This the court holds to be not inher-
emily Illegal, but simply the result Of a
successful strike. JLlge LoRING, how
ever, speaking for the united court.
strongly denounces the defendants for
trying to break contracts between the
pointers and the building contractors.
He also declares illegal the strike of
bricklayers and masons on other build