NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1935)

into believing that the furniture products made and sold by the Huntley Company were composed of and constructed from genuine walnut wood. Friday, September 6, has been designated for the respondent to show cause why an order to cease and desist from the practices charged in the complaint should not be issued. Dismissal of Proceedings No. 209!). The Federal Trade Commission has issued an order closing its proceeding against the Food Distributors Association of Illinois, and others, with headquarters in Chicago. The action was taken without prejudice to the reopening of the case or the issuance of a new complaint in the event the public interest requires such action. The complaint issued against the Food Distributors Association of Illinois and several officers, directors and active and associate members alleged unfair methods of competition having a tendency to bring about regulation and control of trade by and in the interest of the respondents. No. 2175. The Commission also has ordered closed its case against Henry Emmerich, formerly of 122 Fourth Ave., New York City, trading as “Marie Dmme” and charged with false advertising of a massage cream called “Creamo”. The Commis¬ sion ordered closing of the case upon being informed that the respondent is no longer in business, that his present whereabouts are unknown, and that a fraud order has been issued by the Post Office Department against “Marie Dunne”. The Commission was also informed that the respondent did not actually own the busi¬ ness, but was an employee of and “dummy” for the business ope¬ rated by others under the trade names of Nancy Lee, Doris Kent, Marie Dunne and Betty Drew. WRIT OF INJUNCTION DENIED I. B. OF E. W. Judge Creel of the Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama, holds “closed shop agreement” between I. B. of E. W. and WSGN, Incorporated, impliedly warrants that the Local Union will have available at all times enough qualified members to supply any reasonable demand, giving the employer a reasonable range of selection; and that before a writ of injunction should issue the complainants must show complete performance on their part of all obligations imposed upon them, or sufficient excuse for failure to perform, and the contract should be preeminently fair and reasonable in its construction and practical operation. The text of the opinion follows: No. 39227 Local Union No. 2S3, International ' Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, An Unincorporated Association of Indi¬ viduals, and R. M. Jones, (and C. T. Lee, Complainants, vs. WSGN, Incorporated, a Corporation, and Ormond O. Black, Respondents. , Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit OF Alabama. IN Equity. Complainants in the foregoing cause seek to restrain an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between Local Union No. 253, International Brotherhood of Elec¬ trical Workers, an unincorporated Association of Individuals, one of the complainants in the foregoing cause, and the Respondent, WSGN, Inc., a corporation. The contract is what is termed a “Closed shop agreement” between the employer and the employee. This Court has heretofore in the case of Local Unions 109 and 112, Laundry Workers Inter-national Union, an unincorporated Association, and Local Union No. 339, Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, an unincorporated Association, vs. Leeper’s Cleaning and Dyeing, a corporation et al, held that a collective bargaining agreement is valid and binding. It is further of the opinion that the principles of the so-called “closed shop agreement” between employer and employee is valid and binding according to the weight of recent authority. Each contract of this character, however, of a necessity differs from each other contract. The validity of each must be determined in the light of facts and circumstances surrounding its execution. Such contract, however, to be held valid and binding by the Courts must be preeminently fair and reasonable both in its construction and practical operation. The controversy in question grows out of an alleged breach whereby the employer discharged certain employees who were members of the Complainant Union and employed in their stead workmen who were non-members, in disregard of the “closed shop” provisions binding the employer to select his employees solely from members of the Complainant Union. The contract among other things specified that “strikes and lockouts are detrimental * * * and should be avoided.” It pro¬ vides a means of arbitrating disagreements, and states in express terms that in case disagreements or grievances arise: “There shall be no cessation of work by the members of the Party of the Second Part nor any cessation of employment of the Party of the Second Part by the Party of the First Part during the period of con¬ sideration of the matter by the Committee.” Among the matters to be referred to the Arbitration Board provided in the contract are, that if either party desires “An amendment or change of provision, or provisions herein,” the matter of proposed change or amendment shall be submitted by said party in writing to the other party thirty days before such amendment or change shall become effective and that the settlement of such change or amendment shall take the same course as that provided for “disputes or dis¬ agreements or grievances.” This Court has heretofore held in the Laundry vs. Leepers case, supra, that such unincorporated association could contract and be contracted with, and could sue and be sued on such contracts. It is there stated, that solemn obligations between the parties should be enforced by the Courts; that there is no valid reason why em¬ ployer and employee should not perform when bound by a solemn promise; that a wOlful breach by either, when damages result of the character here involved, should be restrained. A valid and binding contract places responsibility on each of the contracting parties. If it is not enforceable as to one party, it should not be enforceable against the other. If one party does not assume and perform his part of the obligations, the other should not be re¬ quired to do so. The Courts in an effort to best serve capital, labor and the public generally, should encourage execution of working agreements by assurance to Employer and Employee that all contracting parties will be expected to perform their solemn obligations. In the case at Bar, there is a conflict in the testimony as to whether or not the contract under which the parties operated was breached and terminated at the time the employee I. J. Jones was discharged and certain other employees immediately refused to report to their post of duty. It is contended by the employer that such contract was breached and terminated, and that the men, including I. J. Jones, were put back to work under protest and because of necessity. The complainant’s contention is to the effect that the then breach, if any, was healed. The Employer apparently later recognized the existence of the contract by writing the Complainant Union his letter of May 14, 1935, requesting cer¬ tain amendments of changes in the contract. Under the circum¬ stances, no act or failure to act of either party done or suffered with reference to the incident occurring about the middle of April, 1935, should be controlling in this decision. Suffice it to say that there was a cessation of work by members of the Complainant Union in violation of the terms of the agreement. It makes no difference whether a “strike was called” or whether the members merely voluntarily failed to report for duty. If the Local Union wishes to secure the benefits of the contract for and on behalf of its employees, it is under the duty to “discipline” its members if necessary as it reserved the right to do in the contract. A breach of this character by the members would constitute a breach by the Union. The employer Respondent on the 14th day of May, 1935, directed a letter to the Union asking for certain amendments or changes in the agreement and requested the Local to proceed with arbitration as provided in the contract. The amendments or changes requested, if adopted, would have changed very materially, if not have revo¬ lutionized the contract. The Complainant instead of selecting arbitrators and proceeding under the terms of the contract decided that there was “Nothing to arbitrate,” and so informed the em¬ ployer. The contract itself does not specify the nature nor the extent of “What amendments or changes” may be requested under its terms. If the requested amendments or changes should prove unreasonable, a fair-minded Board of Arbitrators would so hold. The Court is therefore of the opinion that the question of whether or not to arbitrate was not to be determined by, nor within the discretion of either party to decide. The Contract fixed the pro¬ cedure to follow. The testimony to the effect that the Complainants’ members were practically all employed by the four Radio Stations in the City of Birmingham, each Station being under a closed shop agreement. It tends to show that the purpose of the Complainant Union was • Page 9 1 8 *