Opinion
17112.
SEPTEMBER 11, 1950.
REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 13, 1950.
Petition for injunction. Before Judge Shaw. Fulton Superior Court. March 9, 1950.
John H. Hudson and J. Walter LeCraw, for plaintiffs.
F. L. Breen and James A. Miller, for defendants.
Where an employer barber, who also works as a barber, is not eligible to join the union by reason of being an employer, agrees to employ only union barbers, and is thereby furnished a union card to display in the shop, which card became an agreement to abide by the present or future rules of the union, and where the union subsequently changes its constitution so as to require an employer barber in order to retain the card to join the union and pay dues under a restricted membership, and where the evidence shows that the union is threatening to remove the card unless the employer joins the union, which will damage or destroy the business of the employer — in the absence of any provision of law in this State that would vitiate the terms of the agreement — it is a binding contract; and the trial judge did not err in refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction.
No. 17112. SEPTEMBER 11, 1950. REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 13, 1950.
This was an exception to the refusal of the trial judge to grant an interlocutory injunction.
F. B. Rainwater and three other named plaintiffs, in behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a petition for injunction against L. L. Trimble, President of Atlanta Local No. 23, Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers, Cosmetologists and Proprietors' International Union of America; C. A. Page, Secretary of said Local Union; the above-named International Union; and C. A. Tinnell, an organizer and representative of said International Union. They sought an injunction to prevent the threatened removal of "union shop" cards from their barbershops.
The plaintiffs were proprietors of barbershops in Atlanta and had, for many years past, operated what is known as "union" shops. As proprietors they also worked as barbers using the tools of the trade. When they became proprietors, if they were then members of the union, they were required to retire as members, as proprietors could not belong to the union. Where all of the employee barbers were members of the union, they were furnished a union card to display on the wall. In the early part of 1950 representatives of the union and also of the local chapter advised them that the union had changed the rules, and that they could no longer display the union card in their shops unless they joined the union and paid dues of $2.50 per month. In September, 1948, the union had changed its constitution so as to permit employers to become "proprietor" members under article XVII, section 3, which provides: "A proprietor member working with the tools of the trade shall be entitled to voice and vote in meetings of the local union, but shall be ineligible to vote on matters pertaining to wages, hours of labor, etc. And shall be ineligible to any office in the local or international union or to act as delegate or alternate to conventions." The "Union Shop Card" above referred to was accepted on condition, among others, that the holder would abide by the rules and laws, both present and future, of the International Union and the Local Union.
There was evidence of various employers who had operated union shops and displayed the union card for periods ranging from nine to twenty-five years, to the effect that, if the union card was removed from their shops, their business would decrease. The estimates of decrease ranged from 20% to 50%. There was evidence that the union had removed the cards from some shops where the employer declined to join the union and a decrease in business resulted, and also that the employee barbers would quit if the card was removed, as it was against the union rules for them to work in a shop unless a union card was displayed.
The employers were members of the Associated Master Barbers and Beauticians of America, Chapter 282, in which they paid dues and had sick and health benefits.
The agreement between the union and the employer barbers as to the right to display the union card in their barbershops is plain and unambiguous. The employer barber agrees to abide by the rules of the union governing the display of this card — not only the rules in existence at the time he acquires the card, but all other rules as may be made in the future. The union having amended its rules governing the display of the card by requiring the employer barber to join the union in order to retain the use of the card, this was in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Though the membership offered the employer barbers is a limited membership, yet, it being a rule adopted by the union, and there being nothing in the agreement limiting the effect of future rules, such action was covered by the terms of the agreement, which should be binding unless it is in contravention of some rule of law.
Plaintiffs in error cite two cases, involving the same union and the same question here involved, in which an injunction was granted. Riviello v. Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers and Cosmetologists' International Union of America, Local No. 148, 88 Cal.App. 499 ( 199 P.2d 400); and Foutts v. Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers Cosmetologists' International Union of America, Local No. 105, 88 N.E.2d 317, which was affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals (Ohio App., decided March 29, 1950.) These cases turn on the policy of the law of those particular States. Under our labor laws as contained in Ga. L. 1947, p. 616 (Code, Ann. Supp., Chapter 54-9), and Ga. L. 1947, p. 620 (Code, Ann. Supp., Chapter 54-8), we find no provision that would invalidate the agreement as to the use of the union card, or authorize the trial judge to enjoin its enforcement.
Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.