The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1907-01-14
Important Strike Decision in
Massachusetts
MADE BY JUDGE GASKILL
But No Officer Of Union Has Right t.
Threaten ANY Member Of Union
With Fine--Case That Of
L. D. willcutt & Sons Co.

Boston, Jan. l4.A decision is an
nounced by Judge GiaskiIl Of the superior
court III tile ease of u d. Willcutt &
Sons Co., building contractors. against
the officers and members Of Bricklayers'
Benevolent and Protective Unions and
~, and Stonemasons' Benevolent ana
Protective Nnion O..
Except in the case of the union
officers, James r. Reagan the plaintiffs
bill dismissed, The plaintiff company
sought to restrain the union officers
from imposing fines and penalties upon
the union members. under their rules. to
compel them to join the strike which
had been called last June. The strike
was to enforce upon builders who would
not accede demands for an increase Of
five cents an hour In wages, the union
ization Of foFemen on building jobs and
a right to have business agents Of the
union visit any building where members
Of the unions worked.
Judge Gaskili finds that the unions
have a right to impose fine upon mem.
bers who alto quit work when ordered
out on a iustifahlc strike, but no off,
fieer has right to threaten such mem
bers with fine. The defendants. Jerer
miah J. Driscoll, Patrick J. Walsh and
James p. Reagan. officers in the unions,
are found to have visited certain places
where the concern was at work and to
have offered non-union workmen men,
bership tn the union without being RET
qiired TO pay an initiation fee or being
exposed to an extra fine, and get them
another job If they would quit work.
Some left Driscoll IA found to have
induced two men to leave the 4. ID.
Wilctt s Sons company BY paying
their wages and fare To Utica, NJ ",
while Reagan threatened iourneyman
working on Job in Federal
street vita fine Of STOP il he con
tinucd to work It is this threat that
Il being held unjnstifable, and an I'M
junction is to be issued to prevent him
from repeating It.
The issue Is stated by Judge Gaskill
a. follows:
Il find that most Of the members Of
the respondent unions who left their
work did so through fear Of the fine that
would be imposed upon them ii they
failed TO leave. This was a trade dis
pnte.
'swas the strike iustifiable ones
So far as increasing wages it was for
the advantage Of the laborers. as we'll
rs all other demands except as to the
business agent being allowed to visit
the buildings in construction. The later
was an unreasonable demand and did
not tend to improve the laborers' con
dition.
There was a refusal Of all demands
BY the plaintiff. The strike was a iusti-
fable one as TO one reason and unjusti-
fable as to another. Now. ii justifiable
in part, the defendants had the right TO
call off their men,
"This is not a question between men
who desire to remain, but were coerced
hy fear of fines and the union, but be-
tween unions acting to enforce their
rules and contractor,
"The question resolves itself into this;
In case of a justifable strike, has the
contractor the right to invoke the aid
Of the court TO prevent the labor Union
from imposing fine or taking action
to impose one upon one OF more Of its
members under its rules to induce them
to leave the contractors employ to his
iniry7 | think not. am Of opinion
that Reagan was not justified in threat
ening the imposition Of fine. Decree
for plaintiff against Reagan; bill dis
missed as to the others"