[Download] "Bartenders v. Clark Restaurants" by In Banc Appellate Court of Indiana # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Bartenders v. Clark Restaurants
- Author : In Banc Appellate Court of Indiana
- Release Date : January 06, 1951
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 59 KB
Description
The appellants are a duly organized labor union and certain of the officers thereof. Commencing the latter part of September, 1950 the individual appellants herein and other labor men met on several occasions with the president of appellee to discuss the matter of making appellees business a union house, that is, a closed shop, where all of appellees employees would be required to join the union. None of the appellants or any of their representatives at any time referred to herein discussed with the employees of appellee the matter of such employees becoming members of the union. At all of the times referred to herein none of appellees employees were members of appellant Union, nor had any expressed a desire to become a member thereof. There was no labor dispute between appellee and any of its employees. During the course of these meetings appellees president offered to call a meeting of his employees and let them vote a secret ballot on the question, but appellants rejected this proposal. The president, at a meeting between the parties, expressed a willingness to sign a union contract if appellants would permit those employees who desired to join to do so, but not force those who did not wish to join to become members of the union. At these conferences appellees president insisted he had neither the legal nor moral right to coerce his employees to join appellant union. Appellee refused to attend a further meeting which had been scheduled for December 11, 1950. On December 12, 1950 appellants began picketing appellees restaurants. On the same day appellee filed its verified complaint for a temporary restraining order without notice and asked the court after hearing to grant a permanent injunction. The temporary restraining order was issued. Subsequently upon trial the court, pursuant to request, stated its findings of fact (in substance as set out above) and Conclusions of