The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1921-08-12
"STRUCK WORK"
LAW HELD GOOD
(Typographical JournaD

AT this time, Wnen tne reCdiCl-
trant employers are making such a
determined fight in opposition to
the establishment of a Saturday half
holiday for the printing trades, a
decision of the superior court at
Spokane, Wash, upholding the
"struck- work" clause in Typograph-
ical Union contracts, will be good
news to our members. Employers
in a number of cities have sought
relief in the courts, some filing
petitions in federal courts and others
in the state courts, the form OF
relief prayed for being in the ma
ture of damages, injunctions against
picketing, etc. The ruling of the
Spokane Judge is as follows, and
has an important bearing as to
the application of the laws of the
International Union in the enforce
ment of contractual rights:
Superior Court, Spokane, Wash.
No. 64622-Brooks VS.. Spokane
Falls Typographical Union No. 1913.
Post, Russell & Higgins, attorneys
for plaintiff; Connor, attorney for
defendants:
The plaintiff is engaged in the
business of making linotype slugs.
Prior to May 1st, as a member OF
the employing printers association,
he had a contract with the defend
ant union to operate his business
on the "closed shop" plan. Before
the contract expired the defendant
union notified the employers that
the contract would not be renewed
or continued, except upon basis
of forty-four hours work per week.
The plaintiff acceded to this de-
mand. Other employers of the as
sociation refused to so agree.
Some contention exists between
the parties as to whether the
old contract continued, as be-
tween them, subsequent to May lst.
think that this question is i'm
material to the solution of the
problem presented; but if 1t is
deemed material by either of the
parties, l shall make finding that
it continues in effect; for a clear
preponderance of the evidence sup
ports that conclusion. say that
it is immaterial because if the
contract remained in foyce, under
its terms the defendants had
right to do what they have done,
and that which the plaintiff seeks
to enioin them from. doing; namely,
to direct members of the union, in
the employ of plaintiff, that they
could not make slugs for other em-
ploying printers who have not ac-
ceded to the forty-four- hour week.
The contract provides:
The right is reserved to the
members of this union to refuse
to execute all struck work from
or destined for unfair offices.
If this clause is ambiguous. the
parties themselves have placed an
Interpretation upon it which is adj
verse to plaintiffs contention in
this case.
Shortly after May 1st, the plain
tiff agreed with the defendant un-
ion that he would not require his
EMPLOYEES to perform work for four
specified offices with which the de-
fendant union was then in contro-
versv-thus conceeding that the un-
ion had the right, under this pro,
vision. to designate unfair Offices
end to require its members to re-
fuse to perform work for such Of
fices. If. however, this interpreta-
tion should not be placed upon the
clause in question, the situation is
not controlled by any contract re-
lation between the parties, for there
is no provision in the contract which
prevents the union or its officers
from pursuing the course of con-
dnct they have pursued toward
plaintiff
Then we are confronted with the