Facts
- Frederick O. Vegelahn operated a manufacturing business in Boston.
- After a wage dispute, union members, including George M. Guntner, went on strike and sought to force adoption of the union’s wage schedule.
- Defendants acted in concert to prevent the employer from obtaining or retaining workers, thereby stopping business operations unless the employer met union demands.
- Defendants used a daily patrol (typically two men) on the sidewalk near the factory for extended hours, sometimes with more men, and evidence suggested attempts to deter entry and encourage breach of existing employment arrangements.
- The patrol and accompanying conduct were found to function as intimidation toward current and prospective employees.
- Vegelahn filed a bill in equity, and a preliminary injunction issued restraining patrolling and related obstruction, intimidation, and coordinated interference with employment.
Issues
- Whether equity may enjoin a continuing injury to property or business even when the conduct is also criminally punishable.
- Whether a union patrol maintained to deter workers from entering or continuing employment constitutes unlawful interference that may be enjoined, even as to workers not bound by contract.
Decision
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts approved and continued the injunction.
- The court held that a continuing injury to property or business may be enjoined though the conduct is also punishable as a crime.
- The court held that maintaining a patrol as part of a concerted plan to prevent workers from entering or remaining in employment was an unlawful interference and could be enjoined even if the affected workers were not under contract.
- Holmes, J., joined by Field, C.J., dissented, arguing that absent proof or likelihood of threats or violence, a small peaceful patrol should not be enjoined beyond prohibitions on intimidation.
Legal Principles
- Equity may restrain ongoing, irreparable, or continuing interference with business or property rights notwithstanding that the same conduct may be subject to criminal sanctions.
- Employers and workers have reciprocal rights to contract for employment on mutually agreed terms; concerted intimidation or coercion aimed at defeating those rights may be enjoined.
- Peaceful persuasion may be lawful, but coordinated conduct that operates as intimidation or coercive pressure to prevent hiring or continued employment constitutes actionable interference.
Conclusion
The court upheld an injunction against union patrol picketing where the patrol operated as intimidation in furtherance of a concerted effort to prevent the employer from hiring or retaining workers, and it affirmed that equity can enjoin continuing business injury even if related acts are also crimes.