Bisbee daily review., 1917-12-23

ir aa employee in which it never was a Justification that defendant wished t- retain for himself the services of tho employee. l Black Com. 429: 2 Id. 1i2.
 Now. assuming defendants were ex- e-cising. through Hughes, the right to il -ite men to join their Union. still they had plain notice that plaintiffs T nc was run "non-union." that none O. the men had a right to remain al v'-rk there after joining the Union. and that the observance Of this agree n ent was of great importance and value both 10 plaintiff and to its men wlO had voluntarily made the agree n 7lt and desired to continue working under it. Yet defendants. far from e, eTcicins any care to refrain from un- 2 necessary injuring plaintiff. deliberate eiT and advisedly selected that meth O. cf enlarging their membership w .ich would inflict the greatest in- i--y upon plaintiff and it's loyal em- p 1yees. Every Hitchman miner vhO jc ned Hughes secret order and per n- tied his name 10 be entered upon Eughes' list was guilty of a breach of | g contract Of employment and acted a lie whenever thereafter he entered p 1iRtifTs mine to work Hughes not only cOnnived at this, but must De d-emed to have caused and procured it for 1t was the main feature of de fc16ants' plan, the sine qua non of their programme Evidently. it was deemed to De necessary, in order to organize the Panhandle by strike movement that at the Hitchman. for Q ample. man after man should be per sUaced to join the Union. and having dcne so to remain at work. keeping tho employer in ignorance Of their n-mber and identity. until so many f-I joined tha; by stopping work in T. -iy they could cOerce the employer a-i the remaining miners to organ i7e the mine" that is, to make an agreement that none but members of th- Union should be employed. that c ms of employment should be de tc mined by negotiation not with the employees but with union officers pc-haps residents of other States and e -ployees Of competing mines-and Tt all questions in controversy be- acn the mine operator and the min e-5 should likewise be- settled with outsiders.
 True, it is suggested that under the e-isting contract an employee was not called upon 70 leave plaintiffs en- p'-y until he actually joined the Union s-d that the evidence shows only an Q e-nDt by Hughes to induce the men t0 agree to join. but no attempt to ir- drce them tn violate their contract by failing to withdraw from plaintiffs employment after actually joining Fit in court of equity. which looks t~ the substance and essence of things ard disregards matters of form and t~~hnical nicety. 1t is sufficient to say tat to induce men to agree tO join hut mode of inducing them to join. and that when defendants had sixty men who had signed up or agreed Co join the organization at Hitchman." and were going to shut the mine down as soon as they got d few more men," the sixty were for practical purposes. and therefore in the sight of equity. already members of the Union, and it needed no formal ritual Sr talk ing of an oath to constitute them such; their uniting with the Union in the plan to subvert the system of employ ment at the Hitchman mine. to which they had voluntarily agreed and uDon which their employer and their fellow employees were relying. was sufficient
 But tho facts render it plain that what the defendants were endcavOrinE 10 do at the Hitchman mine and neirh- boring mines cannot he treated as a Iona fide effort i0 enlarge the mem he-ship of the Union. There Is no ev- idence to show. nor can ii be inferred. that defendants intended or desired to have the men al these mines join the Union unless thev could organize the mines Without this the new mem hers would be added Co the rumber of men competing Tor jobs iu Inc or- Eanized districts. while non-uu'fn mcu -roul5 tstc thCi~ niarrs in f'c Pan handle mines Except as means Co fhe end of compelling tho owners nf these mines to rhanro flrir -rrtrnI CT oparatior. the defe1darte ve-o not seeking to ealaree the union merha-- ship