About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

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

handle is hein.journals/injasmb3 and id is 1 raw text is: 


                                MONTHLY BULLETIN

Vol. 3, No.  I

JUNE,   1934

   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..
   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.

                    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 nearly 3,000 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 with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most