Decisions of Courts and Opinions Affecting Labor

This bulletin is the sixth in the series devoted exclusively to the presentation of court decisions, the preceding numbers being 142; 152, 169, 189, and 224. The first bulletin noted bears date of 1912, prior to which time decisions of this nature appeared in practically every issue of the bimonthly bulletins, ending with No. 100. Brief statements are given in the MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW of the bureau of the more important cases as soon as they come to the knowledge of the office, but these are included in the annual summary. No attempt is made to cover the entire list of decisions handed down by the State and Federal courts, representative types being usually sought for. In a few classes of cases, however, as those construing workmen's compensation laws, those relating to labor organizations, and those involving important questions in interstate commerce, a more general inclusiveness is practiced. The decisions used are mainly those handed down by Federal courts and the State courts of last resort, though in some cases opinions of subordinate courts of appellate jurisdiction are used, notably of the Supreme Court of New York. As has been the case for the past few years, no opinion of the Attorney General of the United States construing Federal labor legislation has appeared. The opinions are presented in abridged form, the facts being usually stated in the language of the editors, with quotations from the language of the court in most cases, though occasionally the conclusion reached is indicated without such quotation. The sources used are the same as in the past, i. e., the National Reporter System, published by the West Publishing Co., and the Washington Law Reporter for the District of Columbia. With a few exceptions the cases used are those which were published during the calendar year 1917, the volumes covered being as follows:

Supreme Court Reporter, volume 37, page 22, to volume 38, page 64.

Federal Reporter, volume 236, page 609, to volume 245, page 816. Northeastern Reporter, volume 114, page 321, to volume 117, page 848.

Northwestern Reporter, volume 160, page 209, to volume 165, page 304.

Pacific Reporter, volume 161, page 113, to volume 168, page 1120. Atlantic Reporter, volume 99, page 257, to volume 102, page 336. Southwestern Reporter,, volume 189, page 801, to volume 198, page 816.

Southeastern Reporter, volume 90, page 801, to volume 94, page 480. Southern Reporter, volume 73, page 1, to volume 76, page 824. New York Supplement, volume 161, page 961, to volume 167, page 704.

Washington Law Reporter, volume 45.

An unusually large group of important decisions relate to the subject of labor organizations, a notable case being that of Hitchman Coal Co. v. Mitchell, passed upon by the Supreme Court of the United States. The workmen's compensation laws of the various States afford the largest single group of cases, and here again the Supreme Court of the United States has rendered important decisions on the subject of the application of the State laws on this subject to cases of admirality and interstate commerce. Other important decisions uphold the constitutionality of the minimum-wage laws of Arkansas and Minnesota and declare unconstitutional the initiated act of Washington forbidding employment agencies to collect fees from persons seeking employment by their aid.

This review is an attempt to present in brief the salient points passed upon by the courts in cases under consideration. Technicalities are omitted as far as practicable in the more extended reports and are almost entirely eliminated in this briefer review. In some instances the case must be referred to under more than one head by reason of the fact that more than one point is involved in the discussion. As last year, the subject matter of the case, and not the nature of the law on which it is based, i. e., common or statutory, determines the grouping.

EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE.

ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACT.

While it is commonly said that a contract for personal services is not subject to the rule of specific performance, a few States have enacted laws practically seeking the enforcement of contracts where advances have been made by the employer on the strength of an agreement for services. The Florida law on this subject was under consideration in a case (Goode v. Nelson, p. 69) in which conviction

by the lower court was reversed by the supreme court of the State on account of the declared unconstitutionality of the law as tending to create a status of involuntary servitude. The Federal statute forbidding peonage was held applicable in a case (Bernal v. United States, p. 185) in which a Mexican woman was being held to compulsory service by the proprietor of an alleged hotel in Texas on a claim that the latter had paid the woman's fare, and refused to allow wages for the work done.

A different aspect of the subject of enforced contracts is presented in the case of employees leaving service after having obtained knowledge of secrets of manufacture or other important data of value to their employer, whose exclusive right thereto is guaranteed by principles of common law. An obvious difficulty in passing upon questions involving secret processes of manufacture is their necessary disclosure to experts in cases in which the novelty of the process is in dispute. Such a question was involved in the case E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Co. v. Masland, p. 78), in which the Supreme Court sustained an injunction against a general disclosure to experts, leaving the court opportunity to control inquiries and limit them to those necessary for a determination of the rights of the employer and the employee. In Aronson v. Orlov (p. 80) a simpler question was involved, since the contest hinged on the right of an employer to make use of a device for which applications for patents were under discussion. In this case the Supreme Court of Massachusetts affirmed an injunction against the employee making use of his employer's device in the conduct of a rival business in the same field. A list of customers of a laundry was held (New Method Laundry Co. v. McCann, p. 79) to be a trade secret, the use of which for soliciting trade for a rival company could be enjoined. The company's contention that the injunction should cover the receipt of work by its former employee from its old customers was not sustained.

BREACH OF CONTRACT.

Damages for the unlawful discharge of an employee were approved in a case (Barry v. New York Holding & Construction Co., p. 68) where an estimated value of commissions on business that might have been obtained but for the unlawful discharge was included in the award. A manager of a department store was held entitled to damages for discharge made during the course of the fourth year of service, under a contract for the term of one year, with presumed renewals, the court holding such a presumption controlling (Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Hutchison, p. 72). Employment during a part of the time was held not to reduce damages, since it was unremunerative.

The effect of a custom of trade was under consideration in Cormier v. Lumber Co. (p. 70), in which it was held that "straight time"

« 上一頁繼續 »

圖書