295 N.Y. 254 | NY | 1946
Lead Opinion
An indictment against these defendants has been dismissed on the Grand Jury minutes, and the People appeal. The indictment is a long one but we do not have to *258 work our way through its seventy-three counts. The parties agree that the whole indictment must fall unless there was evidence before the Grand Jury to support this allegation contained in one of the counts: "That the members of said alleged union are persons independently engaged in the business on their own account, duly licensed as such by the City of New York, having no employers, soliciting their own customers and independently engaging in the business of soliciting laundry trade for profit, and that none of the so-called laundry agents who became and are members of said alleged union are employees or have employers, but are engaged in business for themselves and that the said alleged union was not and is not a bona-fide labor union."
The reference is to section
Our question is thus a simple one. If defendants did no more than organize and operate a "bona fide labor union" or an "association" of "workingmen", and through it further the aims lawful for such a union or association, then the Donnelly Act, by precise exclusion, has nothing at all to do with their acts (see discussion of the Clayton Act in Allen Bradley Co. v. Union,
Although some fifty witnesses, including most of the defendants, testified before the Grand Jury, the basic facts are few and undisputed. Until about twenty years ago the laundry companies in New York City had their bundles picked up from, and delivered back to, their customers by drivers employed by the companies. Then some of the laundry companies conceived the idea of changing the status of these drivers so as to avoid the payment of certain insurance premiums and other charges. Under the new plan the driver had to own his own truck and ceased to be an employee. These men, now called "agents", became in time more and more independent and began to shop around among the various laundry companies for the best terms. Some of them combined together to operate their own laundries. Others, singly or in groups, conducted stores where customers brought laundry and called for it when finished. Some of these storekeepers carried the bundles to and from the laundries; in other cases the laundry company picked up the bundles at the store. A thousand or more of these drivers, agents and storekeepers were organized by defendants into Local 324 of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. The so-called *260 "inside workers" in the laundries — that is, the employees who do the actual laundry work — are members of other locals of the parent union, so that practically all the domestic laundry workers in New York City are organized under the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. There are closed shop agreements between the laundry companies and the various locals, by the terms of which the laundry companies are forbidden to do business with drivers, agents or storekeepers who are not union members. Driver-agents and storekeeper-agents are not permitted to shift from one laundry to another except upon consents, procured from committees set up under the closed shop agreements. All but three of the defendants are officers of Local 324 — the other three are connected with the parent organization, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. All, except the three last mentioned are, or have been, laundry truck or wagon drivers.
The members of Local 324, though no longer employees, still drive the vehicles, pick up and mark the bundles, carry them between customers and laundry companies, collect the charges and account to the companies for those collections, receiving as their compensation the difference between the amounts charged by the laundry and the amounts paid by the householders. Their physical activities and their economic function are the same as before. True, they have some of the marks or qualities of independent contractors, such as a measure of independence and some small investment of capital. But in common speech and common sense, they are still "workingmen" just as are window cleaners or furnacemen who go from house to house and are not employees of anyone. We find no controlling definitions of "labor union" or "workingmen" but we are here dealing not with niceties of language but with a broad policy, strongly expressed, of exempting workers from the antimonopoly statutes. The policy of protecting and encouraging the right of workers to organize and bargain is as well settled in this State as any policy could be. It finds further expression in the anti-injunction statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 876-a) passed in 1935, and in our State Labor Relations Act (Labor Law, art. 20), which was enacted in 1937. For sufficient reasons the Legislature limited the coverage of those two statutes to "employees". The 1935 amendment of subdivision *261
3 of section
We find no controlling court decisions strictly in point exceptBernstein v. Madison Baking Co. (
We are deciding this case only. We do not attempt to fix a point at which a person becomes so much an enterpriser that he can no longer enjoy the statutory privileges of a "workingman." "This is one of those classes of cases where it is safer to prick out the contour of the rule empirically, by successive instances, than to attempt definitive generalizations" (HAND, J., in AllStar Feature Corp. case, 231 F. 251, 252, discussing the meaning of "workman" and "servant" in the Bankruptcy Act priority provisions). *262
Judge MEDALIE, before his death, voted for affirmance of the order here appealed from, and expressed views similar to those stated herein.
The order should be affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
The public policy of this State as declared by the Legislature in section
By the indictment, the dismissal of which is about to be affirmed, the Grand Jury of New York County has charged that, in violation of the provisions of the Donnelly Act, the defendants have associated themselves in an alleged labor union (hereinafter referred to as Local No. 324) for purposes of monopoly and in restraint of trade — not for the purposes of forming a bona fide union of workingmen — and have conspired to restrict competition in the supply of laundry service in New York County and elsewhere by preventing independent business people from having their laundry processed in laundries of their own selection. A majority of the court have concluded, as a matter of law, that the membership of Local No. 324 comprises workingmen and, accordingly, that the acts of the defendants were not in violation of the Donnelly Act.
We find it difficult to accept the majority view believing, as we do, that the record of evidence before the Grand Jury met the statutory test for the legal sufficiency of an indictment. That test is: "The grand jury ought to find an indictment, when all the evidence before them, taken together, is such as in their judgment would, if unexplained or uncontradicted, warrant a conviction by the trial jury." (Code Crim. Pro., § 258.)
It is our belief that — within the statutory requirements last quoted above — there was presented before the Grand Jury *263 evidence which "when * * * taken together * * * if unexplained or uncontradicted" was sufficient to "warrant a conviction by the trial jury" of the conspiracy charged. There was evidence that within the membership of Local No. 324 are those individuals who, with their own capital and their own equipment operated by their own employees, conduct laundry enterprises for their own account and are not subject to the control of the bulk laundries. That evidence presented a question of fact as to whether such members are workingmen, viz., employees, or entrepreneurs — in this instance the conductors of business independent of the bulk laundries.
We do not conceive it to be a function of the court to determine whether the evidence before the Grand Jury establishes that the membership of Local No. 324 comprised workingmen rather than employers or entrepreneurs. Such action by the court usurps the statutory function of the Grand Jury which body, as we have seen, is given power to indict in those circumstances where the evidence is such as "in their judgment", if unexplained or uncontradicted, would warrant a conviction by a trial jury.
It is not for the court to exercise that judgment. In this instance the decisive inquiry by the Grand Jury was whether the defendants had formed a bona fide union of workingmen within the terms of the Donnelly Act, or, in violation thereof, had formed a combination in restraint of trade. In pursuing that inquiry the Grand Jury had the right to review both the facts before them and the law applicable thereto as means by which to formulate "their judgment" as to whether such evidence would warrant a conviction by a trial jury. As to the functions thus exercised this court has had occasion to say: "The grand jury is an institution that we inherited with the common law. It is for many legal purposes rather difficult of classification. It is neither a regularly organized tribunal, nor yet an entirely informal body. While in a certain sense a part of the court in connection with which it conducts its deliberations, it is, for many purposes, free from any restraint by that court. A grandjury is clothed with power to determine both the facts and thelaw, and its methods of procedure, so far as they are notdiscretionary, are fixed by statute and not by rules of courts." (Emphasis supplied.) (People v. Glen,
Upon the record before us we believe it is error to rule as amatter of law that the acts of the defendants proven before the Grand Jury were in furtherance of a legitimate union purpose within the exclusory provision of section 340, subdivision 2, of the General Business Law. Accordingly, we dissent and vote to reverse the orders of the Appellate Division and the Court of General Sessions and to reinstate the indictment.
LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., DYE and MEDALIE, JJ., concur with DESMOND, J.; LEWIS, J., dissents in opinion in which CONWAY and THACHER, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed, etc.