The Connecticut labor press., 1920-04-17
RIGHT TO STRIKE
BEING CONTESTED
IN HARTFORD
Hot Fight on Injunction Against
Stage Employees
Union.
WELLS AGAIN BUTTS In
Manufacturers Prize Counsel
Loses Entry One Way,
Gets Another.

Labor's right to strike, insisted upon
by the American Federation of Labor
is in question in the superior court al
Hartford this week, where the Theatri-
cal Stage Employees and Moving Pic
ture Operators Union of that citv is
fighting an injunction secured against il
by the owner of the Majestic and
Princess theaters of that city. The
union through Attorneys Danaher and
McKone is asking the Injunction dis
solved while Allan c. Morrison, the
theater man, wants it made permanent
and is seeking it through former Mayor
Frank A. Hagarty and Labor's old
friend, Attorney Ralph 0. Wells, anti
labor counsel for the Manufacturers
Association. Mr.. Wells tried to break
in last week as special counsel for one
John ]. Kearns, an ex-member of the
union. but was denied the right this
week by Judge Maltibie before whom
the case is being heard. So he asso-
ciated himself with Mr.. Hagarty in
prosecuting the original injunction.
Mr.. Morrison seeks to restrain the
employees from calling a strike against
his theaters alleging he has contract
with them that prohibits this strike.
The attorneys for the union declare
Mr.. Morrison's contract does not exist
and even if it has he had broken it
long ago by his actions and advertise
ments for non-union help after having
agreed to employ union help and recog-
nize the union.
The controversy arises over the en-
ployment by Mr.. Morrison at the
Majestic theater of John ]. Kearns, who
is a movie operator. In addition to
his being a movie operator Mr.. kearns
attended to the electric sign in front of
the theater and this the union had con-
tended was the work of house cleo
trician. Mr. Morrison held, however,
that in his contract with the union it
had waived the employment of a house
electrician by him and as result of his
refusal to call Kearns off from at
tending to the sign, and Kearns' con-
tinuing to do that work, Kearns was ex-
PEELED from the union and fines were
imposed on him and as there were
rurnors that strike was tos be called
against Mr.. Morrison's theaters, be-
cause he refused to discharge Kearns,
he made application for the injunction
TO restrain the strike.
When the case opened last week,
Morrison's attorney submitted paper
claimed to be the contract but this week
under quizzing by Mr.. Danaher, added
another They were dated day apart,
Morrison contending they are separate
contracts and the union claiming they
are the same, the first being the pre-
liminary agreement only. Morrison ad-
mitted practically that before the trou-
Bile he had considered them one and had
fastened both papers together as one.
Mr.. Morrison on the witness stand
admitted that in the latter part of July,
1919, after explaining the situation to
Frank G. Macomber, Mr.. Maco1nber at
his request inserted advertisements for
moving picture operators in about ~
newspapers in New England. An ad-
yertisement from the Bangor Daily
News of July 22, 1919, was shown Mr..
Morrison The advertisement called
for non-union operators and announced
that no union operators need apply.
Mr.. Wells, acting for Kearns, re-
newed the motion made on Friday, that
Kearns be permitted to intervene as
plaintiff. Judge Maltbie said that if
Kearns was permitted to intervene that
he would be bound by the complaint as
it stood and upon which the temporary
Injunction was issued. The issue upon
which the motion to intervene was
based would call for different argu-
ment from that called for in Mr.. Nor
rison's complaint, IN that 1t asked that
Mr. Kearns be reinstated in the union
Under the circumstances the judge said
he did not think he had any right to
permit Mr. Kearns to intervene and so
he denied Mr. Kearns' motion.
In addition as to whether the writ
ings of August ~ and %, constituted
one or separate contracts were other
questions incidental to the way Mr..
Morrison conducts the Majestic and the
Princess theaters were gone into which
bore upon whether he had lived up to
his agreement to recognize the Union
and abide by its rules He eontended
gust ~, 1915, as the paper he said had
no connection with the writing of Au-
gust %, 1915, was not limited as to the
time of expiration The lawyers for
the union, however, urged that the writ
ing of August 27, 1915, was only pre-
Iininary to the writing of August %,
1915, and was a part of it.