Case Name: Abou S. Baillis, Isidor Baillis, Sol Baillis and Shelly Baillis, Doing Business as Baillis Bros., a Copartnership, Respondents, v. George Fuchs, as President of Local Union No. 23 of the International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal and Soft Drink Workers of America, and Fred Sickles, Individually and as Business Agent of Said Beer Drivers' Union Local No. 23, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1939-12-26
Citations: 258 A.D. 919
Docket Number: 
Parties: Abou S. Baillis, Isidor Baillis, Sol Baillis and Shelly Baillis, Doing Business as Baillis Bros., a Copartnership, Respondents, v. George Fuchs, as President of Local Union No. 23 of the International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal and Soft Drink Workers of America, and Fred Sickles, Individually and as Business Agent of Said Beer Drivers’ Union Local No. 23, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 258
Pages: 919–920

Head Matter:
(December 26, 1939.)
Abou S. Baillis, Isidor Baillis, Sol Baillis and Shelly Baillis, Doing Business as Baillis Bros., a Copartnership, Respondents, v. George Fuchs, as President of Local Union No. 23 of the International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal and Soft Drink Workers of America, and Fred Sickles, Individually and as Business Agent of Said Beer Drivers’ Union Local No. 23, Appellants.

Opinion:
Judgment permanently enjoining defendant labor union and its members from picketing plaintiffs' place of business and the places of business of their customers and from doing every and all acts which may interfere with the conduct of plaintiffs' business, and order denying appellants' motion to resettle the judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act has no application to the facts in the instant case. It appears that since the strike was called plaintiffs have been conducting their business themselves and performing substantially all the work formerly done by their former employees, now members of defendant union. Therefore, there is no " labor dispute " within the letter or spirit of the statutory definition and plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction restraining defendants from picketing and interfering with their business. (Thompson v. Boekhout, 273 N. Y. 390.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ.