Burns v. Bricklayers' Benevolent & Protective Union

The plaintiff brought this action and asked judgment in his favor. First. That a “strike" claimed to have been ordered by the defendant on or about January 2, 1889, be declared irregular and void : Second. That four fines amounting to seventy-five dollars imposed on plaintiff be declared null and void. Third. That the plaintiff be reinstated in defendant, and to his rights and privileges as a union man, and that he be given a pass-card to show that he is a member of defendant in good standing. The learned judge at special term found that a “strike” had not been ordered by the defendant, that the fines complained of were legally imposed, and that plaintiff was properly deprived of his pass-card, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant.

We think that the question whether or not a strike was ordered by the defendant is entirely immaterial, for the reason that the plaintiff was fined because he worked for an employer who did not pay his men weekly, and because he worked with non-union men, and for no other reasons. By-§ 9 of the working Code of the defendant, it was provided that the bricklayers should be paid every Saturday, and by § 13 it was further provided that no member should work on the same job with a non-union man. It is conceded that the plaintiff worked for several weeks for one Thomas H. Robbins, whodidnotpayhismenon every Saturday, and it is also conceded that Mr. Robbins employed, during the same period, nonunion bricklayers. The plaintiff clearly violated the rules of the union, and therefore whether a strike was ordered against Mr. Robbins properly or not need not be considered in this case.

The next question is as to the relief asked, that the fines for seventy-five dollars be declared void. We are not called upon to decide whether the fines were lawfully imposed, for the reason that the plaintiff has not exhausted his remedy in the union. The executive committee may not have acted legally in fining the plaintiff without a trial, but their action was valid until rer versed by the act of the union, and the plaintiff, as soon as he learned that the fines stood against him, should have appealed, and can not maintain an action in equity until he has exhausted his remedy in the society.

This point seems well settled by a number of authorities. Poultney v. Bachman, 31 Hun, 49 ; La Fond v. Deems, 81 N. Y., 507 : Gebhard v. New York Club, 21 Abb. N. C., 248 .

The plaintiff was fined on four occasions, as follows: January 7, 1889, ten dollars ; January 14th, twenty-five dollars; January 28th, twenty-five dollars; February 11, 1889, fifteen dollars. He paid twenty-five dollars, and on July 29th was in default over six months for the fine of January 28th. By Article X of the by-laws any member in arrears for fines or dues over six months was prohibited from working until the same were paid. The plaintiff was deprived of his card on July 29, 1889, and at that time was in arrears over six months. The card was properly taken away from him if the fines were valid.

We have examined all the questions raised by the appellant,

Judgment affirmed, with coste.

Van Wtck, J., concurs.