About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

3 Monthly Bull. Int'l Jurid. Ass'n 1 (1934-1935)

handle is hein.journals/injasmb3 and id is 1 raw text is: INTERNATIONAL JURIDICAL ASSOCIATION MONTHLY BULLETIN Vol. 3, No. I JUNE, 1934 THE INJUNCTION MENACE Two recent injunctions' granted by Mr. Justice Faber in Brooklyn present a composite picture of all the worst phases of Brooklyn labor adjudications: (1) emascula- tion of the statutory provisions for notice to the defen- dants, (2) disregard of the court's lack of jurisdiction over the union, (3) granting of injunctions upon in- adequate and fully controverted affidavits of the plaintiffs, (4) restraints-completely suppressing the legitimate act- ivities of labor unions even as to matters to which the complaint and moving affidavits do not refer.. NATHAN'S FAMOUS, INC. INJUNCTION The first of the two cases arose out of a strike declared April 17 by the Cafeteria Workers Union, a branch of the Food Workers Industrial Union, against Nathan's Famous, Inc., well-known hot-dog stand in Coney Island. Six days later the company applied before Mr. Justice Faber for an injunction.' In its moving papers the plaintiff set out the following story: the company had signed a closed shop agreement with the Cooks and Countermen's Union, affiliated with the A. F. of L., the defendant union had pro- tested that the A. F. of L. union did not represent the em- ployees and themselves demanded a closed shop contract.' After an attempt at arbitration between the unions had failed the Cafeteria Workers had renewed their demand; it had again been refused and the strike had followed. The company assigned as its reason for preferring to deal with the A. F. of L. union the Communistic character of the de- fendant union.' The conduct of the strike by the Cafeteria Workers was alleged to have been improper. Plaintiff complained that the defendant circulated false statements to the effect that defendants were striking against unsanitary conditions, low wages, long hours, speed-up and sweat-shop conditions, being forced to pay for their own food on the job, being coerced into joining a union to which they did not choose to belong and against being forced to pay $200 as security for their jobs. According to the affidavits of the plaintiff and 16 of its alleged customers the pickets assaulted plain- tiff's customers, throwing frankfurters and beer out of (Continued on page 7) 1. Nathan's Famous, Inc. v. Winter (Cafeteria Workers Union), Sup. Ct. Kings Co., April 24, 1933 (preliminary stay), May 17 (motion to vacate de- nied) and May 24 (injunction pendente lite); the case is not reported in the New York Law Journal. Kronowitz & Ladlo (Standard Baking Co.) v. Schlansky, N. Y. L. J., May 22, 1934, Kings Co., Sup. Ct., Sp. 1. 2. Both the Cafeteria Workers Union and the Food Workers Industrial Union were named as defendants, the latter apparently being included as the governing organization which ordered the acts complained of and in order to establish the communistic character of the Cafeteria Workers Union (see infra, note 4). 3. No claim was made, at any stage of the proceeding, that any of the employees desired representation by the Cooks and Countermen's Union. The defendants in answering included affidavits of 21 alleged employees who asserted that they had chosen the Cafeteria Workers and that the company had tried to force them into the A. F. of L. union. 4. Counsel for the company is an expert on communistic unions, employing a stock set of affidavits in seeking injunctions against left wing unions. Thus the 1923 letter of Charles G. Wood former Conciliator of the United States Department of Labor (discharged April 1, 1934, see I. J. A. Bull., Vol. 2, No II, p. 5) urging New York shoe manufacturers not to deal with left. wing shoe unions, used by the same counsel last fall in that industry (see The N.R.A. and a Left-Wing Union in New York, I. J. A. Bull., Vol. 2, No. 5, p. 6) is now made to do service in other fields. According to the president of Nathan's the strike was intended to destroy his (hot-dog) business as part of a political movement. RECENT ITEMS OF INTEREST RIGHTS OF 4EGROES Scottsboro Conviction Affirmed. On June 28, the Su- preme Court of Alabama affirmed the conviction for rape of Haywood Patterson and Clarence Norris, and the death sentences imposed by the juries in each of the cases on December 1 and 6 respectively. The systematic exclusion of Negroes from the juries, the prejudicial conduct of the trial judge and the insufficiency of the evidence were the main points raised. The Supreme Court held there was no showing of discrimination against Negroes in the selection of the juries, grand and petit. The absence of Negroes was accounted for by the small number in the county and the need under the Alabama statute of selecting men of good judgment. The contention of the defense that fraud was in- volved in the addition of certain Negro names to the Grand Jury roll the Court disposed of by saying it was im- material. We pass it by without any expression of opinion thereon. All other contentions raised by the de- fense were overruled. On the question of Judge Calla- han's prejudice the Supreme Court said the question is so lacking of support in the record that we feel no neces- sity exists for a discussion thereof. The Supreme Court said that it had considered the evidence, and even if the question had been left open2 it would not have set the verdict aside because the evidence was insufficient. In the Patterson case, the Alabama'Supreme Court went further and ruled, as requested by Attorney General Knight, that the bill of exceptions was not filed in time. The bill of exceptions was filed on March 5 so that if the Patterson judgment was entered December 6, the bill of exceptions was presented within the 90 day period re- quired. Despite notations in the record that the judgment was entered December 6 and the definite statement in an earlier motion of the Attorney General that the judgment was entered on December 6, the Court without men- tioning either point, ruled that the judgment was entered December 1, five days before Patterson was sentenced by Judge W. W. Callahan, and thus according to the Court, the bill of exception was filed too late. The date of execution in both cases has been set for August 31. In both, review by the United States Supreme Court will be sought. In the Patterson case the additional constitutional issue may be urged that the refusal of the Alabama Supreme Court to review the case on the merits was in itself a denial of due process and equal protection. 1. For the conviction see Scottsboro, I. J. A. Bull. Vol. 2, No. 7, p. 6. 2. Under Alabama practice the dismissal of the motions for a new trial blocked consideration of the evidence. For the dismissal of these motions as not filed in time, see I. J. A. Bull., Vol. 2, No. 10, p. 3. 3. Before defense counsel had, as they thought, definitely ascertained that the judgment was entered December 6, one copy of the bill of exceptions was sent South by air mail in time to arrive December 1. The plane crashed. 4. Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. . Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 679-682 (1930).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most