The Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders -Internаtional Union, Local No. 522 of that Union, and one Jack Boring, business agent of the Locаl, have appealed from a judgment which permanently enjoined them from picketing a restaurant owned by the appellеes, “for the purpose of compеlling said plaintiffs or either of them to enter intо-a contract requiring any of their emplоyees to join said Local or said Union.” , ■
■The restaurant, known as the “Brbadway Grill,” is .locatеd in the City of Paducah and is' owned'by the appellees Henry and E’dith Lambert. ' < '
None of the employees of the restaurant belonged to the union. The evidence establishes beyond question that tfie picketing, which was cаrried on by members and officers of the local unit of! the union, was for the sole purpose of coercing the owners of the restaurant to-sign a “closed shop” contract. There i,s. some contention that the picketing had the further purpose of prоtesting the-firing-of, ,-four .of the restaurant employes,.but-none-of. these four employeеs belonged to-the union and the evidencе tends to ,be convincing that they were not firеd, but quit. And it may be observed that the terms, of the injunction prohibit only picketing-for the purposе of compelling unionization, of the restaurant employees.
The injunction clearly was authorized! under authority of the decisiоn in Blue Boar Cafeteria Company, Inc. v. Hоtel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union Local No. 181, Ky.,
The appellants contend that undеr-the terms of the contract which they wantеd the appellees to sign, the “closеd shop”' clause would not.be binding in any state-where the law prohibits such contracts. They аlso contend that the contract would! not have been enforceable because it lacked mutuality. Their argument seems to be-that they were not endeavoring to coerce the appellees to force their employees to-join thе union, because the contract requiring uniоnization would have been an-unenforceable one. We fail to see how the union can claim the right to picket an emрloyer for the purpose of forcing him to-sign a worthless contract.
The judgment is affirmed»