*3
basis.
are
Equity
of
By
resolution, discipline
possible sus-
subjected to
and
to be
they shall, after the
if
expulsion,
pension or
engagement
specified date, secure
comedy fields
musical
legitimate and
City
York
in New
personal representative
licensed
been
who
or environs
would fol-
consequences which
Equity. The
such
expulsion are
suspension or
low
Equity
practically certain that
as make
per-
unlicensed
employ
do business with
representative. To
sonal
plaintiff must there-
future,
them in
a li-
license;
obtain
fore obtain
that, if he contracts
agree
must
cense he
on the
Equity, he will do so
members of
of such
one
specified
permit,
terms
objection
most strenuous
terms, to which the
modi-
being
requirement that he
made,
members,
fy
outstanding contracts with
his
do,
con-
requested by
so that old
them to
up
shall conform
standards set
tracts
to the
endeavoring
Thus
for the new.
all
who use the serv-
obtain for
its members
personal representative,
ices
either un-
of
old,
der new
or under
uniform
contraéis
important
respect
terms in
to sueh
matters as
compensation,
maximum rate
duration of
of
term,
guaranty
maximum contract
of
year.
twenty
employment in each
weeks’
aiding
abetting in this
defendants are
endeavor;
is no doubt that it will
and there
equity
of
succeed,
a court
intervenes.
unless
Sheffield,
City (Paul
of New
Justus
York
beyond
Equally
doubt is the fact that the
Turner, Emily Holt,
N.
C.
and Justus Shef-
plaintiff’s business will be affected.
If he
field,
City,
of
York
counsel),
all New
of
accepts
members,
new business
appellants.
prescribed terms,
it on the
in-
he must take
Burkan,
Nathan
of New York City, for
cluding
modification of
appellee.
conditioned,
true,
—a modification
it is
MANTON,
Before
SWAN, and AUGUS-
only
request
on
conditioned
which would
HAND,
Judges.
TUS
seem certain to be made.
If he declines a
may
carry
he
outstanding
out his
SWAN,
Judge (after
stating
Equity members,
contracts with
but he must
facts as above).
may
be,
appellee forego
writing
any
as the
new business with
contends, that the
formally
resolution
adopt-
them.
McBride,
Justice
in Ribnick
Mr.
Stone
Beyond doubt each individual
legally priv
Ed.
U. S.
Ct.
acting independently,
S.
Equity,
requirement
on 56
A. L. R.
ileged
employ Mr. Edelstein
1327. Hence
to refuse to
that,
writing
as a
new business
any
employ him on terms
condition
terms, or to offer
its
members,
Trade Comm.
old contracts
offerer’s dictation. Fed.
new
Raymond
members must
conform to the
Co.,
44 S.
be made to
S.U.
justify an
standards,
us to
Ct.
Ed.
30 A. L.
does not seem to
purpose of
primary
He
make his offer identical with
inference that
injury upon
may in
up by Equity,
requirement
infliction
set
standards
requirement
plaintiff,
personal representatives
that Mr. Edel
and other
clude therein
protec
modify an
situation,
similar
rather than the
stein
consent to
shall
Equity’s-
supposed
A re
another.
tion of
him or with
interests
contract with
any other terms would
insist
fusal
on
members.
terms
to deal
*4
Edelstein;
priv
represen
personal
is
right of
he
calculated to secure from
violate no
Mr.
impartial service,
the
at-
ileged
accept
reject
offer,
or
tatives
and more
to
the
better
to
improve
he
cheaper rates,
business if
uniform
and to
fact
he will
the new
that
lose
modify his
would
of
theater-
employment
contracts
actors
refuses to
conditions of
question
in
quite
Undoubtedly
immaterial.
is whether
defendants
managers.
be
The
the
rights-
give up
fellow
plaintiff
to
privileged
compel
to combine
tend to
the
an
is
actor
except
con
on these
which
not
refusing
deal
do
in
to
under
actors
by Equity,
up
set
power
economic
terms,
concerted
form to the new standards
when their
in so-
already indicated, their motive
plaintiff
but,
the alterna
present to
as
is such
toas
fel
doing
or los
and their
accepting
offered
is
benefit themselves
tives
the terms
to
of
legitimate
struggle.
the
in
low
the economic
New York business
actors in
his
comedy
this
plaintiff
Here the motive financial
to
is incidental to
and musical
fields.
loss
err,
Engraving
purpose.
act
a
Gill
Do
confederates
becomes
See
Co. v.
whieh the
(D.
very
111,
Y.).
fac 214
120
D. N.
important,
controlling,
not the
F.
C. S.
says:
personal
tor.
Court
Whether in their relations to
The District
representatives
deprive
Equity
purpose
“In
far as
is to
members are to be
the
ap
plaintiff
because
of employers,
of
he refuses
a combination
as
new
deemed
business
primary
pellants
contracts,
contend,
ap
to
ob-
“labor union,”
surrender old
the
or a
as
ject
injure
disputed.
pellee
is
him.”
us
insists,
to
is a matter
To
agree.
policy
per
appears
adopted
With
we cannot
If a
in fact
it
the
representative
outstanding
improving
position
sonal
has
with an aimed at
their
from both
Equity
provides,
they
aspects;
contract whieh
be
em
whether
viewed as
cent,
per
ployers
for example,
commission,
employees
a 15
or
no
it
seem to make
would
subjected
temp
agree
employ
that he is
to
self-evident
the
difference. Counsel
that both
employment
organize
tation
find
respectively
for the old
and laborers
to
client ers
rather
bargaining
than for a
he has
strengthen
power
new one with whom
to
their
cent,
only
per
legal princi
struggle,
10
commis
the
economic
and that
contracted
professional
sion, regardless
ples
group
of
relative
same.
applicable
the
to
the
each
group
New clients will
industrial
qualifications of the two.
benefit to the
The motive of
disadvantage
justify
of
old con
deal
because
collective refusal to
be at a
will often
hand,
of
if the rate
accede to
whieh
the other
with one who will not
terms
tracts. On
promote
group,
in both
whether
is the same
contracts but
interests of such
commission
guaranty
employers.
of
composed
contains
it
of laborers
contract
be
new
Fireproofing
not,
one
Co. Mason Builders’
employment whieh the old
does
See Nat.
v.
(N. S.)
L.
likely
Ass’n,
269,
favored in the mat
169 F.
26 R. A.
259,
new client is
to be
v.
2);
it is
Ass’n
placement.
(C.
ter
believes that
Nat. Protective
148
C. A.
369, 58
advantageous
members,
to its
the
63
Cumming,
315,
to the
170 Y.
N. E.
Rep.
generally,
648;
88
Bossert
135,
to
all its
Am. St.
profession
atrical
have
L. R. A.
582,
respect
342, 117 N.
Ann.
equality
Dhuy, 221 N. Y.
E.
an
to absence v.
members on
232 Ill.
personal rep
1918D, 661;
Hey,
part
on the
of a
Wilson
of favoritism
Cas.
928,
(N.
16
securing employment
396, 83 N.
L.
A.
on the
E.
resentative
Rep. 119,
comedy
Am.
13
Cas.
legitimate
stage.
S.) 85, 122
Ann.
and musical
St.
Macauley
Tierney,
unregulated
19 R. I.
employment agencies 82;
evils
Bros. v.
Rep.
(using
broadly
1,A.
37 L. R. A.
Am. St.
this term
to include also the
Hollis,
Mfg.
personal representative)
770; Bohn
Co. v.
Minn.
are' set forth in the
21 R. A.
40 Am. St.
defendants’
and are
N. W.
affidavits
corroborated
knowledge.
Rep. 319;
& Kinnaird
Louisville
Booker
dissenting opinion
common
See
Ky. 771,
Suspended.
Underwriters, 188
“The actor will be
Board of Fire
Agent
think
“The
will
his Permit.
A.
We
lose
L. R.
S. W.
along
Manager
get
“The
have to
with-
supplies justification
that that motive
say out the
must
of our members.”
Therefore, unless we
services
instant case.
over
control
If
Equity’s
these communications were
that because
is il
City, it
supply
managers
York
deemed a
not
of actors in New
notification that
were
against
power
through plaintiff,
hire
their combined
until he secured
exercise
legal to
deal
permit,
plain-
refusal
member with whom
by collective
plaintiff
no
already
we see
outstanding contract,
tiff
had an
we
he obtains a
him until
wel do
say
unobjection-
not
injunction.
Whether
would be
basis
question
curtailment
able.
requires
arise,
That
leave
society
we
till it shall
fare of
exer
it
group which
now
before us
power when
because
lower
economic
particular
purpose
injunc-
court found for
complete
of this
control
it is
cises
seem tion that
old
excepted
field
contracts were
commercial
industrial or
Legis
Viewing
for the
resolution.
appropriate
as
letters
refer-
problem more
abe
.any
But,
ring only
hiring
courts.
with whom the
for the
latures
ap
plaintiff might
authority
9th,
cited
contract
been
after October
event, no
illegal the threat we do
think
can be
to hold
considered
us
require
pears to
deal attempt
secondary
boycott against
to create a
refusal of
ened
pro plaintiff.
terms
except upon
ground
a notification of a new
*5
plaintiff
with
near
for suspending
most
or expelling
eases
contrary,
the
members
On
posed.
the
Tan
calling
See
and a
appellants.
the
attention to the old rule
point sustain
ly in
33 Misc.
Exch.,
good
which
standing
Ins.
forbids members in
Fire
from
Y.N.
v.
nenbaum
City
Co. v. working
suspended
342;
Trust
with
S.
members.
is not
Y.
134, 68 N.
Rep.
222;
Y. S.
an
Rep. 7,
plaintiff’s
95 N.
effort to
manager
coerce
Waldhauer, 47 Misc.
cus-
Live
supra; Am.
tomers
Tierney,
not to
with him,
deal
as in
Macauley
v.
Auburn
Bros.
Exchange, Draying
Wardell,
Co.
Chicago Livestock
v.
1,
Y.N.
stock Comm.
190,
97,
A.
N. E.
L.
274, 18 L. R.
6 A. R.
Despite
phrase
E.
901.
the
210, 32
143 Ill.
Marr,
requesting
385;
co-operation,
Boutwell
really
cf.
it
Rep.
asks no ac-
St.
36 Am.
by
Am.
tion
producing
managers
R. A.
carry
to
1, 42 A.
into
Vt.
effect the new rule. That is to be
Rep. 746.
made ef-
St.
noti
by
merely
solely
fective
disciplinary
not
the
did
action of
But
defendants
the
engaged Equity upon
persons
its own members who
it.
members
violate
fy their own
repre
managers
From
personal
the
acting
nothing
expected
as
is
but
business
in the
by Equi
adopted
the observance of the old
shop
closed
resolution
rule.
of the
sentatives
pro
managers and
In Cohn & Roth Electric Co. v.
They
Bricklayers’
notified
also
ty.
gone Union,
have
92 Conn.
urged
Edelstein v. Gillmore
35 F.2d 723
2d Cir.1929Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.