The Connecticut labor press. (New Haven, Conn.) 191?-1921, 1919-08-16
UNION FAVORED IN DECISION.
Continued from First Page.)

WOIkIIlGIl at the GEORGE MCLaCnldn FAC
tory. These officers thereupon sought
to increase the production in union
i shops of hats in the rough, by Various
means, such as relaxing their rules as
to overtime work, and inducing shops
which had not made hats in the rough
for sale, to embark in that enterprise
They also, and herein lies the crux
of this controversy, determined that
union shops, engaged in making, should
give preference in their deliveries to
union shops engaged in finishing In
carrying out this determination, on or
about June 23rd last, the officers of
Local No. 10, informed George McLach-
Ian that he was, in future deliveries, to
follow this policy. At that time
McLach1an had received and accepted
a large number of orders from the
plaintiff, which were, in whole or in
part, untitled. He had then certain hats
in the rough ready for immediate de-
livery to the plaintiff and these he was
permitted to deliver; and later, he was
permitted to make a further delivery to
the plaintiff of certain hats in the
rough, of a kind not ordinarily dealt
with by the trade. He refused how
ever, to make further deliveries to the
plaintiff because of his fear that, if he
did so, the unions would take action
against him.
"The officers of Local No. 10, at the
time when they informed him of the
determination to which the unions had
come did not know that he had received
and accepted untitled orders from the
plaintiff he did not tell them of that
fact, nor did they inquire The imme-
date purpose of the officers of the
unions was to secure an adequate sup
ply OF hats in the rough for union shop
finishing factories, even at the expense
of non-union shop fnishers; their ulti-
mate purpose was, however, to secure
to the members of affiliated unions
working in union finishing shops the
means of keeping TIP full time employ
ment; their purpose was not to coerce
the plaintiff into unionizing his shop,
nor was their attention in any way par
t1cularly directed against him; nor did
they intend IN any way to prevent open
finishing shops from securing hats in
the rough from union making shops,
when union finishing shops were ade-
quately supplied They made no defin-
lite threats to Mel ach1an, but his action
was due to knowledge of the power
of the unions, should they see fit to do
SO, to embarrass him in carving on
his factory and his fear of their SO do
ing. On the other hand, there was no
rule of the unions requiring union shops
making hats to give preference to union
shops finishing hats, although such
purpose might be somewhat served BY
rules forbidding union finishing shop
to use the union label unless all parts
OF the hats were made in union shops.
These facts present two fundamen-
tai questions of law. Is it legally JUS
tihab1e for the unions to require that
union shops making hats should prefer.
IN their deliveries, union finishing shops,
at time when the latter were unable
to secure an adequate supply of hats
IN rough p And, if that question is
answered in the affirmative, could they.
put that requirement into effect when
the result would be to compel the max
, ing shop to violate a contractura1 obi
CATION already incurred to make de1iv-
cries to an open finishing shopa One
of the primary purposes of trade union
ism must be to secure for their mem
bers the opportunity to labor, even
when the effect is to prevent workmen
not members of the union from secur-
ing employment. Had this controversy
arisen IN a shop which both made and
finished hats, and where all the work
men were members of one union, and
had the cause of it been that the shop
at current prices were selling to out
siders hats in the rough, when it had
a demand for all the finished product it
could supply, with the result that certain
hnishers were deprived of work, l think
no court would say that the union was
not legally justified in demanding
cessation of outside sales, until its own
members were supplied with work.
Under the somewhat peculiar, situa-
ton in the hatters' trade, I think the
same considerations must govern this
case. a The worknen, in both making
and finishing, are bound together by
Joint interests and affiliated into one or
ganization; the trade is one trade, each
process one step toward the production
of one article of trade. Though the
immediate effort is to give the union
manufacturer preference over the nom
union, the ultimate purpose of securing
work for all the members of the union
redeems the situation. have no hest
lance in answering the first question in
the affirmative.
"In the we1ter of decisions concern
ing the iabIlitySof one who causes an
other to break his contract with a third
party. there is no clearly defined way,
and, in proceeding such as this, niSi
prius judge can do little more than fol-
low his own convictions. I think a
broad line of distinction may be drawn
between those cases where the breaking
of the contract is the real end sought
and those where such a result is an in
cident in the accomplishment of some
other purpose; and that this controversy
falls clearly within the latter class. II
seems to me that the better reason lies
with those courts which hold that, in |
such cases, the result accomplished is |
not the test but the question is, is that
result legally juStifable; and, in refer |
ence to this controversy, legal justifica-
ton requires that the conduct producing |
the breach must be in good faith in
tended, and reasonably adapted, to pro-
duce legitimate end. See Connors " |
Connolly, SO Conn. az, 64o. Take this |
case:
"A and B are manufacturers of the |
same article, and both are under con-
tract to make deliveries to their GUS
toners; both have an insufficient |
amount of raw material at hand, and |
C has the only available supply; G is |
under moral obligations to A for past |
fayors, and, A uses this fact to bring |
pressure to bear upon c to secure a
preference in the delivery of the raw
material to himself, knowing that there
by B will be prevented from fulfilling |
his contractura1 obligations. Here A
causes breach of BIS contractural OBJ
legations, but he could not, in reason,
4 1oo-o11-, 1:abfo fn~ en- 1o;raor The /