## Facts

- J. F. Parkinson Company operated a lumber yard and employed both union and non-union workers, including a journeyman tinner.
- The tinner owned five shares of Parkinson’s corporate stock and claimed union recognition as a “master” entitled to a “master’s card,” while continuing to work for journeyman wages.
- The unions refused to treat the tinner as a “master,” treated him as a non-union worker, and demanded his discharge.
- When Parkinson refused to discharge the tinner, the Building Trades Council and affiliated unions placed Parkinson on an “unfair” list, using the term in a union-technical sense indicating that union members would not work for or deal with the employer.
- Union members withdrew their labor from Parkinson, and unionized contractors ceased dealing with Parkinson in accordance with union policy not to work for, handle materials from, or work for contractors dealing with employers of non-union workers.
- Parkinson sought injunctive relief, alleging defendants combined to injure and coerce it and to bring its business under union control.
- The trial court entered an injunction broadly restraining the unions and their members from boycotting Parkinson’s business; defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a concerted union refusal to work for or deal with an employer of non-union workers, and to refrain from working for contractors who deal with that employer, is an unlawful conspiracy or tortious boycott warranting injunctive relief.
2. Whether listing an employer as “unfair” and communicating that status constitutes unlawful intimidation or other wrongful conduct.
3. Whether a journeyman employee who owns a small amount of corporate stock may be treated as his own “employer” for union-classification purposes.
4. Whether a one-time technical trespass by a union agent, without threat of repetition, supports a continuing injunction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California reversed the injunction insofar as it treated the unions’ concerted action as an unlawful conspiracy and restrained the boycott.
- The evidence did not support the trial court’s finding of an unlawful combination to injure or intimidate, except in a limited sense consistent with lawful concerted action.
- The unions’ peaceful combination to withhold labor and to refuse dealings with an employer of non-union labor was lawful absent contract breach, statutory violation, or unlawful means (e.g., violence, threats, or intimidation).
- The tinner’s stock ownership did not make him an “employer”; the corporation remained the employer, so the unions could treat him as a non-union journeyman.
- The “unfair” label, as used in union parlance, did not impute fraud or dishonor and was not wrongful on that basis.
- A single technical trespass by a union agent, without threatened repetition, was insufficient to justify injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- A conspiracy requires concerted action to accomplish a criminal or unlawful purpose, or a lawful purpose by criminal or unlawful means.
- Labor unions and workers not bound by contract and not using unlawful means may lawfully combine to refuse to work for or deal with employers of non-union workers, and to refuse to handle materials supplied by such employers.
- A lawful strike or work stoppage conducted without breach of contract, violence, threats, or intimidation is not rendered unlawful by the workers’ motive; bad motive does not convert a lawful act into a tort.
- A corporation is a legal person distinct from its shareholders; stock ownership by an employee does not make the employee an “employer” of corporate workers.
- Union use of “unfair” in a technical labor sense—signaling refusal of union labor and dealings—does not, by itself, constitute defamation or unlawful intimidation.
- Injunctive relief is improper when based only on an isolated technical trespass absent a showing of likely repetition.

## Conclusion

The court held that peaceful, non-contract-breaking union concerted action to withhold labor and refuse dealings with an employer of non-union workers is lawful and does not constitute an actionable conspiracy; it also rejected the employee-shareholder “master” claim and vacated injunctive relief unsupported by unlawful means or likely future wrongdoing.


J. F. Parkinson Co. v. Bldg. Trades Council of Santa Clara Cnty., 154 Cal. 581 (Cal. 1908)