245 U.S. 229 | SCOTUS | 1916
Lead Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a suit in equity, commenced October 24,1907, in the United States Circuit (afterwards District) Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, by the Hitch-man Coal & Coke Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of West Virginia, against certain citizens of the State of Ohio, sued individually and also as officers of the United Mine Workers of America. Other non-citizens of plaintiff's State were named as defendants but not served with process. Those who were served and who answered the bill were T. L. Lewis, Vice President of the U. M. W. A. and of the International Union U. M. W. A.; William Green, D. H. Sullivan, and “George” W. Savage, (his correct Christian name is Gwilym), respectively President, Vice President, and Secretary-Treasurer of District No. 6, U. M. W. A.; and A. R. Watkins, John Zelenka, and Lee Rankin, respectively President, Vice President and Secretary-Treasurer of Sub-district No. 5 of District No. 6.
A restraining order having been granted, followed by a temporary injunction, the served defendants filed answers, and thereupon made a motion to modify the injunction, which was refused. 172 Fed. Rep. 963. An appeal taken by defendants from this order was dismissed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 176 Fed. Rep. 549. Afterwards
The final decree of the District Court included an award of injunction against John Mitchell, W. B. Wilson, and Thomas Hughes, who while named as defendants in the bill were not served with process and entered no appearance except to object to the jurisdiction of the court over them. Under the federal practice, the appearance to object did not bind these parties to submit to the jurisdiction on the overruling of the objection (Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476, 479; Southern Pacific Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202, 206; Mexican Central Ry. Co. v. Pinkney, 149 U. S. 194, 209; Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518; Davis v. C., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 217 U. S. 157, 174), and since the injunction operates only in personam, it was erroneous to include them as defendants. It also was erroneous to include personal relief by injunction against certain named parties who, pending suit, were chosen to succeed some of the original defendants as officers of the international,, district, and sub-district
But these procedural difficulties do not affect that part of the decree which awarded an injunction against the answering defendants (Lewis, Green, Sullivan, Savage, Watkins, Zelenka, and Rankin) “individually” and not as officers of the Union or its branches except as to Savage, against whom the decree goes in both his individual and official capacities, he alone having retained at the time of the final decree the same office he held at the beginning of the suit. If there was error in excluding the “official” responsibility of the others, it was not one of which they could complain, and it was not assigned for error upon their appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. If they were subject to injunction at all, they were so in their individual capacities. Whether the decree will bind their successors in office, or their fellow-members of the Union, is a question to be determined hereafter, if and when proceedings are taken to enforce the injunction against parties other than the answering defendants.
We proceed, therefore, to consider the case as it stands against the answering defendants.
The District Court based its decision upon two grounds: (1) That the organization known as the United Mine Workers of America, and its branches, as conducted and managed at the time of the suit and for many years before, was a common-law conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade, and also and especially a conspiracy against the rights of non-union miners in West Virginia;
A brief recital of previous transactions between the parties becomes material. The Union is a voluntary and unincorporated association which was organized in the year 1890 in the States of Ohio and Indiana, and after-wards was extended to other States. It is made up of national or “international,” district, sub-district, and local unions. District No. 6 comprises the coal districts of Ohio and the Panhandle of West Virginia. Sub-district No. 5 of that district comprises five counties and parts of counties in Ohio, and the Panhandle.
The answering defendants were and are active and influential members — -leaders—of the Union, as well as officers. Savage, .Lewis, and Sullivan have been members from its formation in 1890, and have held important offices in it and attended the national conventions. The others are long-time members, and possessed an influence indicated by the offices they held, but not limited to the duties of those offices.
From 1897 to 1906 what were known as joint interstate conferences were held annually or biennially between officials of the Union and representatives of the operators in the “Central Competitive Field” (which includes Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, but not West Virginia), .for the purpose of agreeing upon the scale of wages and the conditions of employment in that field. In addition there were occasional conferences of the same character affecting other States and districts.
Again, in the spring of 1904, there was difficulty in renewing the scale. A temporary scale, agreed- upon between operators and miners for the month of April, 1904, was signed in behalf of the Hitchman Company on the 18th of April. Two days later the men at the Hitchman struck, and the mine remained idle for two months, during which time plaintiff sustained serious losses in business and was put to heavy expense in obtaining coal from other sources to fill its contract with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company. The strike was settled by the adoption of the official scale for the Panhandle District, with amendatory local rules for the Hitchman mine.
After this there was little further trouble until April 1,
During this strike plaintiff was subjected to heavy losses and extraordinary expenses with respect to its business, of the same kind that had befallen it during the previous strikes.
About the 1st of June a self-appointed committee of employees called upon plaintiff’s president, stated in substance that they could not remain longer on strike because they were not receiving benefits from the Union, and asked upon what terms they could return to work. They were told that they could come back, but not as members of the United Mine Workers of America; that thenceforward the mine would be run nomunion, and the company would deal with each man individually. They assented to this, and returned to work on a non-union basis. Mr. Pickett, the mine superintendent, had charge of employing the men, then and afterwards, and to each one who applied for employment he explained the conditions, which were that while the company paid the wages demanded by the Union and as much as anybody else, the mine was run non-union and would continue so to run; that the company would not recognize the United Mine Workers of America; that if any man wanted to become a member of that union he was at liberty to do so; but he could not be a member of it and remain in the employ of the Hitchman Company; that if he worked for the company he would have to work as a non-union man. To this each man employed gave his assent, un
Since January, 1908 . (after the commencement of the suit), in addition to having this verbal understanding, each man has been required to sign an employment card expressing in substance the same- terms. This has neither enlarged nor diminished plaintiff’s rights, the agreement not being such as is required by law to be in writing.
Under this arrangement as to the terms of employment, plaintiff operated its mine from June 12, 1906, until the commencement of the suit in the fall of the following year.
During the same period a precisely similar method of employment obtained at the Glendale mine, a property consisting of about 1,200 acres of coal land'adjoining the Hitchman property on the south, and operated by a company having the same stockholders and the same management as the Hitchman; the office of the Glendale mine being at the Hitchman Coal & Coke Company’s office. Another mine in the Panhandle, known as the Richland, a few miles north of the Hitchman, likewise was run “non-union.”
In fact, all coal mines in the Panhandle and elsewhere in West Virginia, except in a small district known as the Kanawha field, were run “non-union,” while the entire industry in Ohio-, Indiana, and Illinois was operated on the “closed-shop” basis, so that no man could hold a job about the mines unless he was a member of the United •Mine Workers of America. Pennsylvania occupied a middle ground, only a part of it being under the jurisdiction of the Union. Other States need not be particularly mentioned.
The unorganized condition of the mines in the Panhandle and some other districts was recognized as a serious interference with the purposes of the Union in the
The discussion continued during three days, and at the end of it the report of a committee which expressed disagreement with Vice President Lewis’ opposition to sectional settlements and recommended “a continuation in the future of the same wise, conservative business-like policies” that had been pursued by President Mitchell, was adopted by a viva voce vote.
The plain effect of this action was to approve a policy which, as applied to the concrete case, meant that in order to relieve the union miners of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois from the competition of the cheaper product of the non-union mines of West Virginia, the West Virginia mines should be “organized” by means of strikes local to West Virginia, the strike benefits to be paid by assessments upon the union miners in the other States mentioned, while they remained at work.
Evidently in pursuance of this resolution, defendants Green, Zelenka, and Watkins, about July 1, 1907, called at plaintiff’s office and laid before its general manager, Mr. Koch, a proposition for the unionization of the mine. He declined , to consider it, but at their request laid it before plaintiff’s board of directors, who rejected the proposition, and the manager informed Green of this In one of the interviews Koch informed these defendants of the terms of plaintiff’s working agreement with its employees to the effect that the mine was to be run non-union and they were not to become members of the Union.
About the same time, a Mr. McKinley, who was operating the Richland mine non-union, was interviewed by the Union leaders, notified of the resolution adopted by. the sub-district convention, and, having asked that his mine be let alone, was met with the threat that they would secure the support of his men, and that if he did not recognize the Union they would shut down his mine.
The evidence renders it clear that Hughes was sent into the Panhandle to organize all the mines there, in accordance with the resolution of the sub-district convention. The bill made a statement of his activities, and alleged that he was acting as an organizer for the Union. Defendants’ final answers made a complete denial, but in this are contradicted by admissions made in the earlier answers and by other and undisputed evidence. The only defendant who testified upon the subject declared that Hughes was employed by District No. 6 as an organizer, but denied that he had power or authority to shut down the Hitchman mine..
He arrived at that mine some time in September, 1907, and remained there or in that vicinity until the latter part of October, conducting a campaign of organization at the Hitchman and at the neighboring Glendale and Richland mines.
The evidence shows that he had distinct and timely notice that membership in the Union was inconsistent with the terms of employment at all three mines, and a violation of the express provisions of the agreement at the Hitchman and Glendale.
A highly significant thing, giving character to Hughes’ entire course of conduct, is that while his solicitation of the men was more or less public, as necessarily it had to be, he.was careful to keep secret the number and the names of those who agreed to join the Union. Myers, being asked to allow his name to be entered on a book
The question whether Hughes had “power or authority” to shut down the Hitchman mine is beside the mark. We are not here concerned with any question of ultra vires, but with an actual threat of closing down, plaintiff’s mine, made by Hughes while acting as agent of an organized body of men who indubitably were united in a. purpose to close it unless plaintiff would conform to their wishes with respect to its management, and who lacked the power to carry out that purpose only because they had not as yet persuaded a sufficient number of the Hitchman miners to join with them, and hence employed Hughes as an “organizer” and sent him to the mine with the very
If there be any practical distinction between organizing the miners and organizing the mine, it has no application to this case. Unionizing the miners is but a step in the process of unionizing the mine, followed by the latter almost as á matter of course. Plaintiff is as much entitled to prevent the first step as the second, so far as its own employees are concerned, and to be protected against irreparable injury resulting from either. Besides, the evidence shows, without any dispute, that defendants contemplated no half-way measures, but were bent on organizing the mine, the “consent” of plaintiff to be procured through such a control of its employees as would render,any further independent operation of the mine out of the question. This is evident from the discussions and resolutions of the international and sub-district conventions, from what was said by defendants Green, Zelenka, and Watkins to plaintiff’s manager, and to the operator of the Richland, and from all that was said and done by Hughes in his effort to organize the Hitchman, Glendale, and Richland mines.
■ In short, at the time the bill was filed, defendants, although having full notice of the terms of employment^ existing between plaintiff and its miners, were engaged in an earnest effort to subvert those relations without plaintiff’s consent, and to alienate a sufficient number of the men to shut down the mine, to the end that the fear of losses through stoppage of operations might coerce plaintiff into “recognizing the union” at the cost of its own independence. The methods resorted to by their “organizer” were such as have been described. The legal consequences remain for discussion.
Upon a kindred principle, the declarations and conduct of an agent, within the scope and in the course of his agency, are admissible as original evidence against the principal, just as his own declarations or conduct would be admissible. Barreda v. Silsbee, 21 How. 146, 164, 165; Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad v. O'Brien, 119 U. S. 99, 104; LaAbra Silver Mining Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 423, 498. And since the evidence of Hughes’ agency is clear and undisputed — that' as the representative of a voluntary association of which the answering defendants were active members, and in the execution of a purpose to which they all had given consent, and in which some of them were actively cooperating, he was engaged in an effort to organize the coal mines of the Panhandle District — it is equally clear that his declarations and conduct while so doing are evidential against the defendants.
What are the legal consequences of the facts that have been detailed?
That the plaintiff was acting within its lawful rights in employing its men only upon terms of continuing non-membership in the United Mine Workers of America is not open to question'. Plaintiff’s repeated costly experiences of strikes and other interferences while attempting to “run union” were a sufficient explanation of its resolve bo run “non-union,” if any were needed. But neither explanation nor justification is needed! Whatever may be the advantages of “collective bargaining,” it is not bargaining at all, in any just sense, unless it is voluntary on both sides. The same liberty which enables men to form unions, and through the union to enter into agree
Plaintiff, having in the exercise of its undoubted rights established a working agreement between it and its employees, with the free assent of the latter, is entitled to be protected in the enjoyment of the resulting status, as in any other legal right. That the employment was “at will,” and terminable by either party at any time, is of no consequence. In Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 38, this court ruled upon the precise question as follows: “It is said that the bill does not show an employment for a term, and that under an employment at will the complainant could be discharged at any time for any reason or for no reason, the motive of the employer being immaterial. The conclusion, however, that is sought to be drawn is too broad. The fact that the employment is at the will of the parties, respectively, does not make it one at the will of others. The employé has manifest interest in the freedom of the employer to exercise his judgment without illegal interference or compulsion, and, by the weight
In short, plaintiff was and is entitled to the good will of its employees, precisely as a merchant is entitled to the good will of his customers although they are under no obligation to continue to deal with him. The value of the relation lies in the reasonable probability that by properly treating its employees, and paying them fair wages, and avoiding reasonable grounds of complaint, it will be able to retain them in its employ, and to fill vacancies occurring from time to time by the employment of other men on the same terms. The pecuniary value of such reasonable probabilities is ' incalculably great,- and is recognized by the law in a variety of relations. See Brennan v. United Hatters, (cited with approval in Truax v. Raich, supra,) 73 N. J. L. 729, 749; Brown v. Honiss, 74 N. J. L. 501, 514 et seq.; Jersey City Printing Co. v. Cassidy, 63 N. J. Eq. 759, 767; Walker v. Cronin, 107 Massachusetts, 555, 565-566; Moran v. Dunphy, 177 Massachusetts, 485, and cases there cited; L. D. Wilcutt & Sons Co. v. Driscoll, 200 Massachusetts, 110, 117, etc.
The right of action for persuading an employee ta leave his employer is universally recognized — nowhere more clearly than in West Virginia — and it rests upon fundamental principles of general application, not upon the English statute of laborers. . Thacker Coal Co. v. Burke, 59 W. Va. 253, 255; 8 Ann. Cas. 885, 886; Walker v. Cronin, 107 Massachusetts, 555, 567; Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul &c. Ry. Co., 151 U. S. 1, 13; Noice Adm'x, v. Brawn, 39 N. J. L. 569, 572.
We turn to the matters set up by way of justification or excuse for defendants’ interference with the situation existing at plaintiff’s mine.
The case involves no question of the rights of employees.
It is suggested as a ground of criticism that plaintiff endeavored to secure a closed non-union mine through individual agreements with its employees, as if this furnished some sort of excuse for the employment of coercive measures to secure a closed union shop through a collective agreement with the Union. It is a sufficient answer, in law, to repeat that plaintiff had a legal and constitutional right to exclude union men from its employ. But it may be worth while to say, in addition: first, that there was no middle ground open to plaintiff; no option to have an ’’open shop” employing union men and non-union men indifferently; it was the Union that insisted upon closed-shop agreements, requiring even carpenters employed about a mine to be members of the Union, and making the employment of any nonunion man a ground for a strike; and secondly, plaintiff was in the reasonable exercise of its rights in excluding all union men from its employ, having learned, from a previous experience, that unless this were done union organizers might gain access to its mine in the guise of laborers.
Defendants set up, by way of justification or excuse, the right of workingmen to form unions, and to enlarge their membership by inviting other workingmen to join. The right is freely conceded, provided the objects of the union be proper and legitimate, which we assume to be true, in a general sense, with respect to the Union here in question. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 439. The cardinal error of defendants’ position lies
Now, assuming defendants were exercising, through Hughes, the right to invite men to join their Union, still they had plain notice that plaintiff’s mine was run “nonunion,” that none of the men had a right to remain at work there after joining the Union, and that the observance of this agreement was of great importance and value both to plaintiff and to its men who had voluntarily made the agreement and desired to continue working under it. Yet defendants, far from exercising any care to refrain from unnecessarily injuring plaintiff, deliberately and advisedly selected that method of enlarging their membership which would inflict the greatest injury upon plaintiff and its loyal employees. Every Hitch-man miner who joined Hughes’ “secret order” and permitted his name to be entered upon Hughes’ list was guilty of a breach of his contract of employment and
True, it is suggested that under the existing contract an employee was not called upon to leave plaintiff’s employ until he actually joined the Union, and that the evidence shows only an attempt by Hughes to induce the men to agree to join, but no attempt to induce them to violate their contract by failing to withdraw from plaintiff’s employment after actually joining. But in a court of equity, which looks to the substance- and essence of things and disregards matters of form and technical nicety, it is sufficient to say that to induce men to agree to join is but a mode of inducing them to join, and that when defendants “had sixty men who had signed up or agreed to join the organization at Hitchman,” and were “going to shut'the mine down as soon as they got a few more men,” the sixty were for practical purposes, and therefore in the sight of equity, already members of the
But the facts render it plain that what the defendants were endeavoring to do at the Hitchman mine and neighboring mines cannot be treated as a bona fide effort to enlarge the membership of the Union. There is no evidence to show, nor can it be inferred, that defendants intended or desired to have the men at these mines join the Union, unless they could organize the mines. Without this, the new members would be added to the number of men competing for jobs in the organized districts, while nonunion men would take their places in the Panhandle mines. Except as a means to the end of compelling the owners of these mines to change their method of operation, the defendants were not seeking to enlarge the union membership.
In any aspect of the matter, it cannot be said that defendants were pursuing their object by lawful means. The question of their intentions — of their bona fides— cannot be ignored. It enters into the question of malice. As Bowen, L. J., justly said, in the Mogul Steamship Case, 23 Q. B. Div. 613, “Intentionally to do that which is calculated in the ordinary course of events to damage, and which does, in fact, damage another in that other person's property or trade, is actionable if done without just causé or excuse.” And the intentional infliction of such damage upon another, without justification or excuse, is malicious in law. Bitterman v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 207 U. S. 205, 223; Brennan v. United Hatters, 73 N. J. L. 729, 744 et seq., and eases cited. Of course, in a court of equity, when passing upon the right of injunction, damage threatened, irremediable by action at law, is equivalent to damage done. And we cannot deem
Another fundamental error in defendants’ position consists in the assumption that all measures that may be resorted to are lawful if they are “peaceable” — that is, if they stop short of physical violence, or coercion through fear of it. In our opinion, any violation of plaintiff’s legal rights contrived by defendants for the purpose of inflicting damage, or having that as its necessary effect, is as plainly inhibited by the law as if it involved a breach of the peace. A combination to procure concerted breaches of contract by plaintiff’s employees constitutes such a violation. Flaccus v. Smith, 199 Pa. St. 128; 54 L. R. A. 640; South Wales Miners’ Federation v. Glamorgan Coal Co., [1905] A. C. 239, 244, 250, 253; Jonas Glass Co. v. Glass Bottle Blowers Association, 77 N. J. Eq. 219, 223.
The present is not a case of merely withholding from an employer an economic need — as a supply of labor— until he assents to be governed by union regulations. Defendants have no supply of labor of which plaintiff stands in need. By the statement of defendant Lewis himself, made in his formal report to the Indianapolis convention of 1907, out of more than 370,000 coal miners in the States of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, less than 80,000 (about 22 per cent.) were members of the Union. Considering the Panhandle separately, doubtless the proportion was even smaller, and the supply of non-union labor ample. There is no reason to doubt that if defendants had been actuated by a genuine desire to increase the membership of the Union without unnecessary injury to the known rights of plaintiff, they would have permitted their proselytes to withdraw from plaintiff’s employ when and as they became
It was one thing for plaintiff to find, from time to time, comparatively small numbers of men to take vacant places in a going mine, another and a much more difficult thing to find a complete gang of new men to start up a mine shut down by a strike, when there might be a reasonable apprehension of violence at the hands of the strikers and their sympathizers. The disordered condition of a mining town in time of strike is matter of common knowledge. It was this kind of intimidation, as well as that resulting from the large organized membership of the Union, that defendants sought to exert upon plaintiff, and it renders pertinent what was said by this court in the Gompers Case (221 U. S. 418, 439), immediately following the recognition of the right to form labor unions: "But the very fact that it is lawful to form these bodies, with multitudes of members, means that they have thereby acquired a vast power, in the presence of which the individual may be helpless. This power, when unlawfully used against one, cannot be met, except by his purchasing peace at the cost of submitting to terms which involve the sacrifice of rights protected by the Constitution; or by standing on such rights and appealing to the preventive powers of a court of equity. When such appeal is made it is the duty of government to protect the one against the many as well as the many against the one.”
Upon all the facts, we are constrained to hold that the purpose entertained by defendants to bring about a strike at plaintiff’s mine in order to compel plaintiff, through fear of financial loss, to consent to the unionization of the mine as the lesser evil, was an unlawful purpose, and that the methods resorted to by Hughes— the inducing of employees to unite with the Union in an effort to subvert the system of employment at the mine by concerted breaches of the contracts of employment known to be in force there, not to mention misrepresentation, deceptive statements, and threats of pecuniary loss communicated by Hughes to the men — were unlawful and malicious methods, and not to be justified as a fair exercise of the right to increase the membership of the Union.
There can be no question that plaintiff was threatened with danger of an immediate strike as a result of the activities of Hughes. The effect of his arguments and representations is not to be judged from the testimony of those witnesses who rejected his Overtures. Naturally, it was not easy for plaintiff to find men who would testify that they had agreed with Hughes to break their contract with plaintiff. One such did testify. But the true. measure of the extent of his operations and the probability of his carrying them to success, are indicated by his
That the damage resulting from a strike would be irremediable at law is too plain for discussion.
Therefore, upon the undisputed facts of the case, and the indubitable inferences from them, plaintiff is entitled to relief by injunction. Having become convinced by three costly strikes, occurring within a period of as many years, of the futility of attempting to operate under a closed-shop agreement with the Union, it established the mine on a non-union basis, with the unanimous approval of its employees — in fact upon their suggestion — and under a mutual agreement, assented to by every employee, that plaintiff would continue to run its mine non-union and would not recognize the United Mine Workers of America; that if-any man wanted to become a member of that Union he was at liberty to do so, but he could not be a member and remain in plaintiff’s employ. Under that agreement plaintiff ran its mine for a year and more, and, so far as appears, without the slighest disagreement between it and its men, and without any grievance on their part. Thereupon defendants, having full notice of the working agreement between plaintiff and its men, and acting without any agency for those men, but as representatives of an organization of- mine workers in other States, and in order to subject plaintiff to such participation by the Union in the management of the mine as necessarily results from the making of a closed-shop agreement, sent their agent to the mine, who, with full notice of, and for the very purpose of subverting,
As against the answering defendants, plaintiff’s right to an injunction is clear; as to the others named as defendants, but not served with process, the decree is erroneous, as already stated.
Respecting the sweep of the injunction, we differ somewhat from the result reached by the District Court.
So far as it restrains — (1) Interfering or attempting to interfere with plaintiff’s employees for the purpose of unionizing plaintiff’s mine without its consent, by representing or causing to be represented to any of plaintiff’s employees, or to any person who might become an employee of plaintiff, that such person will suffer or is likely to suffer some loss or trouble in continuing in or in entering the employment of plaintiff, by reason of plaintiff not recognizing the Union, or because plaintiff runs a nonunion mine; (2) Interfering or attempting to interfere with plaintiff’s employees for the purpose of unionizing the mine without plaintiff’s consent, and in aid of such purpose knowingly and wilfully bringing about the breaking by plaintiff’s employees of contracts of service known at the timé to exist with plaintiff’s present and future employees; (3) Knowingly and wilfully enticing plaintiff’s employees, present or future, to leave plaintiff’s service on the ground that plaintiff does not recognize the United Mine Workers of America or runs a non-union mine,
The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed, and the decree of the District Court is modified as above stated, and as so modified it ^s affirmed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Mr. Pickett was superintendent of the Hitchman and Glendale mines, and it was with him that the miners made their agreements to refrain from membership in the Union; Daugherty and Jarrett were miners at the Hitchman, and had been,- respectively, President a,nd Financial Secretary of the local union at the time of the 1906 strike, when the local deserted the U. M. W. A.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
This suit was begun October 24, 1907. The Hitchman Coal & Coke Company, plaintiff below, is the owner of a coal mine in West Virginia. John Mitchell and nine others, defendants below, were then the chief executive officers of the United Mine Workers of America and of its district and sub-district organizations having “jurisdiction” over the territory in which plaintiff’s mine is situated; and were sued both individually and as such officers. The mine had been “unionized” about three years prior to April 16th, 1906; and until about that date was operated as a “union” mine, under a collective agreement with a local union of the United Mine Workers of America. Then a strike was declared, by the union; and a short shut-down followed. While the strike so declared was still in force, as the bill alleges, the company re-opened the mine as a closed non-union mine. Thereafter persons applying for work were required as a condition of obtaining employment to agree that they would not, while in the service of the company, be a member of the union, and if they joined the union.would withdraw from the company’s employ.
The District Court held that the United Mine Workers of America with its subordinate branches constitutes an unlawful organization — illegal both under the law of West Virginia and under the Federal Anti-Trust Act; that its long continued effort to unionize the' mines of West Virginia had not been “in the interest either of the betterment of mine labor in the State or of upholding that free commerce in coal between the States guaranteed by Federal law,” but to restrain if not destroy it for the benefit of “rival operators and producers in Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Indiana, competitive fields” in which the mines had been unionized; and that “in pursuit of its unlawful purposes” the union “have sought and still seek to compel the plaintiff ... to submit to contractual relations with it as an organization relating to the employment of labor and production contrary to the will and wish of said company; that its officers, in pursuance of such unlawful effort to monopolize labor and restrain trade, and with knowledge of the express contracts existing between this plaintiff and its employees, have unlawfully sought to cause the breach of the said contracts on the part of its said employees.”
The decree, besides the usual injunction against threat, intimidation, force or violence, and against inducing breaches of employees’ contracts or trespassing upon plaintiff’s property, enjoined defendants (and others hereinafter described), among other things, from—
1. “Representing [“for the purpose of unionizing plaintiff’s mine without plaintiff’s consent”] ... to
2. “ . . . knowingly and wilfully enticing [“for the'purpose of unionizing plaintiff’s mine without plaintiff’s consent”] plaintiff’s employees, present or future, . . . to leave plaintiff’s service, giving or assigning ... as a reason for . . . leaving of plaintiff’s service, that plaintiff does not recognize the United Mine Workers of America, or that plaintiff runs a nonunion mine.”
3. “ . . . knowingly and wilfully enticing plaintiff’s employees, present or future, ... to leave plaintiff’s service, without plaintiff’s consent, against plaintiff’s will, and to plaintiff’s injury.”
4. “ . . . establishing a picket ... for the purpose of inducing . . . by . . . persuasion . . . any person ; . . coming to plaintiff’s mine to accept employment ... to refuse ... to accept service with plaintiff.”
5. “ . .. . interfering in any manner whatsoever, either by . . . persuasion or entreaty with any person in the employ of plaintiff who has contracted with and is in the actual service of plaintiff to . . . induce him to quit the service of plaintiff ... or assisting, or abetting in any manner” his doing so.
Three of the defendants — Mitchell, Wilson and Hughes —were never served with process and did not enter any appearance except to object to the jurisdiction of the court over them. Of the remaining seven all but two had, prior to the entry of the final decree, ceased to hold
The Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing the decree of the District Court, held that the United Mine Workers of America was not an unlawful organization under the laws of West Virginia, that its validity under the Federal Anti-Trust Act could not be considered in this proceeding; that so long as defendants “refrained from resorting to unlawful measures to effectuate” their purpose “they could not be said to be engaged in a conspiracy to unionize plaintiff’s mine”; that “the evidence fails to show that any unlawful methods were resorted to by these defendants in this instance”; and specifically that there was nothing in the individual contracts which barred defendants from inducing the employees to join the union. With these conclusions I agree substantially.
First: The alleged illegality of the United Mine Workers of America under the law of West Virginia.
The United Mine Workers of America does not appear to differ essentially in character and purpose from other international unions which, like it, are affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Its membership is said
Second: The alleged illegality of the United Mine Workers of America- under the Federal Anti-Trust Act.
The District Judge undertook to pass upon the legality of the United Mine Workers of America under the Federal Anti-Trust Act; but the question was not in issue in the case. It had not been raised in the bill or by answer. Evidence bearing upon the issue was properly objected to by defendants and should have been excluded.
Third: The alleged conspiracy against the West Virginia Mines.
It was doubtless the desire of the United Mine Workers to unionize every mine on the American continent and especially those in' West Virginia which compete directly with the mines of Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and other States already unionized. That desire and the purpose to effect it were not unlawful. They were part of a reasonable effort to improve the condition of workingmen engaged in the industry by strengthening their bargaining power through unions; and extending the field of union power. No conspiracy to shut down or otherwise injure West Virginia-was proved, nor was there
Fourth: “ Unionizing plaintiff’s mine urithout plaintiff’s consent.”
The fundamental prohibition of the injunction is against acts done “for the purpose of unionizing plaintiff’s mine without plaintiff’s consent.” Unionizing a shop does not mean inducing the employees to become members of the union.
It is urged that a union agreement curtails the liberty of the operator. Every agreement curtails the liberty of those who enter into it* The test of legality is not whether an agreement curtails liberty, but whether the parties have agreed upon some thing which the law prohibits or declares otherwise to be inconsistent with the public welfare. The operator by the union agreement
It is also urged that defendants are seeking to “coerce” .plaintiff .to “unionize” its mine. But coercion, in a legal sense, is not exerted when a union merely endeavors to induce employees to join a union with the intention thereafter to order a strike unless the employer consents to unionize his shop. Such pressure is not coercion in a legal sense. The employer is free either to accept the agreement or the disadvantage. Indeed, the plaintiff’s whole case is rested upon agreements secured under similar pressure of economic necessity or disadvantage. If it is coercion to threaten to strike unless plaintiff consents to a closed union shop, it is coercion also to threaten not to give one employment unless the applicant will consent to a closed non-union, shop. The employer may sign the union agreement for fear that labor may not be otherwise obtainable; the workman may sign the individual agreement for fear that employment may not be otherwise obtainable. But such fear does not imply coercion in a legal sense..
In other words an employer, in order to effectuate the closing of his shop to union labor, may exact an agreement to that effect from his employees. The agreement
Fifth: There was no attempt to induce employees to violate, their contracts.
The contract created an employment at will; and the employee was free to leave at any time. The contract did not bind the employee not to join the union; and he was free to join it at any time. The contract merely' bound him to withdraw from plaintiff’s employ, if he joined the union. There is evidence of an attempt to induce plaintiff’s employees to agree to join the union; but none whatever of any attempt to induce them to violate their contract. • Until an employee actually joined the union he was not, under the contract, called upon to leave plaintiff’s employ. There consequently would be no breach of contract until the employee both joined the union and failed to withdraw from plaintiff’s employ. There was no evidence that any employee was persuaded to do that or that such a course was contemplated. What perhaps was intended was to secure agreements or assurances from individual employees that they would join the union when a large number of them should have consented to do so; with the purpose, when such time arrived, to have them join the union
Sixth: Merely persuading employees to leave plaintiff’s employ or others not to enter it was not unlawful.
To induce third persons to leave an employment is actionable if done maliciously and without justifiable cause although such persons are free to leave at their own will. Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 38;. Thacker Coal Co. v. Burke, 59 W. Va. 253. It is equally actionable so to induce others not to enter the service. The individual contracts of plaintiff with its employees added nothing to its right- in this connection, since the employment was terminable at will.
As persuasion, considered merely as a means, is clearly legal, defendants were within their rights if, and only if, their interference with the relation of plaintiff to its employees was for justifiable cause. The purpose of interfering was confessedly in order to strengthen the union, in the belief that thereby the condition of workmen engaged in mining would be improved; the bargaining power of the individual workingman was to be strengthened by collective bargaining; and collective bárgaining was to be ensured bjr obtaining the union agreement. It should not, at this day, be doubted that to induce workingmen to leave or not to enter an employment in order to advance such a purpose is justifiable when the workmen are not bound by contract to remain in such employment.
Seventh: There was no “threat, violence or intimidation.”
The decree enjoined “threats, violence or intimidation.” Such action would, of course, be unlawful though employed in a justifiable cause. But there is no evidence that any of the defendants have resorted to such means. The propaganda among plaintiff’s employees was conducted almost entirely by one man, the defendant Hughes, a District No. 6 organizer. His actions were orderly and
When this suit was filed no right of the plaintiff had been infringed and there was no reasonable ground to believe that any of its rights would be interfered with; and, in my opinion, the Circuit Court of Appeals properly reversed the decree of the District Court, and directed that the bill be dismissed.
About two months after the restraining order was issued in this case the plaintiff company began the practice of requiring applicants for work to sign employment cards, in the following terms:
“I am employed by and work for the Hitchman Coal & Coke Company with the express understanding that I am not a member of the United Mine Workers of America, and .will not become so while an employee of the Hitchman Coal & Coke Company; that the Hitch-man Coal & Coke Company is run non-union and agrees with me that it will run non-union while I am writs employ. If at any time I am employed by the Hitchman Coal & Coke Company I want to become connected with the United Mine Workers of America, or any affiliated organization, I agree to withdraw from the employment of said company, and agree that while I am in the employ of that company I will not make any efforts amongst its employees to bring about the union*264 izing of that mine against the company’s wish. I have either read the above or heard the same read.”
Prior to that time, the agreement rested in oral understanding merely, and is sufficiently indicated in the following excerpts from the testimony of the mine superintendent as to what he told the men applying for employment:
“I also told them that any man who wahted to become a member of the United Mine Workers — that that was his business — but he could not be a member of the United Mine Workers and be affiliated with the United Mine Workers and be under the employ of the Hitchman Coal & Coke Company, or be under the jurisdiction of the United Mine Workers; that the mine was run non-union so far as the United Mine Workers of America were concerned.
“Q. You mean you made every man understand that while he worked for the Hitchman Company he must keep out of the union?
“A. Yes, sir; or at least they said they understood it.”
This alleged conspiracy not being in issue, the District Court improperly allowed the introduction of, and considered, a mass of documents referring to various mine workers’ conventions, and joint conventions of miners and operators held years previous to the filing of the bill. Judge Dayton laid great stress on reported declarations of the delegates to these conventions, although the declarations of alleged co-conspirators were obviously inadmissible, there being no foundation for the conspiracy charge.
A witness for' the defendants testified as follows:
“There is a difference between unionizing a mine and unionizing the employees in a mine; unionizing the employees is having the men join the organization; unionizing a mine is creating joint relations between the employers and employees; a mine cannot be unionized unless the employer enters into contractual relations with the union; it is not the policy or purpose of the United Mine Workers as an organization to coerce a man into doing a thing against his will; this distinction between unionizing a mine and unionizing the employees of a mine has existed since the organization came about, and this method of unionizing a mine existed in 1906 and 1907.”
A witness for the plaintiff testified that “the term ‘union,’ when applied to mining, means the United Mine Workers, and a union mine is a mine that is under their jurisdiction and so recognized . . .” The contrary is “non-union or open shop.” And further, “The men might be unionized at a mine and the mine owners not recognize the union. That would in effect be an open shop. When I said ‘unionize the employees’ I meant practically all of the employees; but a union mine, as I understand, it, is one wherein the closed shop is practically enforced.” In such case, the witness explained, the operator would be practically in contract relation with the organization.
It was also testified: “The difference between organizing the men at
Following is a notice of one of Hughes’ meetings which was torn from a telegraph pole in the street by the plaintiff’s mine superintendent:
“Notice to the miners of the Hitchman mine. There will be a mass meeting Friday evening at 6.30 P. M. at Nick Heil’s Base Ball Grounds, for the purpose of discussing the principáis of organization. President' William Green will be present. All miners aré cordially invited to attend.”