Appeal, No. 267, Jan. T., 1962, from decree of Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1961, No. 3533, in case of Locust-Midcity Club of Philadelphia v. Hotel, Motel & Club Employees' Union, Local No. 568, AFL-CIO, and Lawrence Stoltz. Decree affirmed.
Alan R. Howe, with him Edward Davis, for appellants.
Robert H. Kleeb, with him E. Jackson Bonney, and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, for appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS
Appellee Locust-Midcity Club is a private, nonprofit social club which operates for its members facilities such as a restaurant, bar, game rooms, barber shop, etc., at its clubhouse in central Philadelphia. Since its formation by consolidation of the Locust Club and the Midcity Club in 1960, appellant labor union has been picketing the premises of the club for recognition as exclusive bargaining agent of the club's employees.*fn1 Appellee sought and obtained a decree enjoining the picketing of its premises by the union.*fn2
Involved in the present factual setting is the prior relationship between appellant union and the former Locust Club. In August, 1956, the union, then representing twelve of nineteen Locust Club employees, made a demand upon that club for recognition as bargaining agent. The club refused the request, nine of its union employees went on strike, and the club discharged those employees, thereby destroying the union's majority. Subsequently, the Locust Club sought to enjoin the picketing which had continued after these discharges,
but the relief sought was refused. This Court affirmed the refusal to grant an injunction in Locust Club v. Hotel and Club Employees' Union, 397 Pa. 357, 155 A.2d 27 (1959). We there held that the exclusionary provisions of the Labor Anti-Injunction Act*fn3 relied upon by the Locust Club were not available to it since the union had represented a majority of employees at the inception of the strike but did not command that status at the time of the injunction proceedings because the employer had unilaterally discharged union members and replaced them with other employees.*fn4
At the time of the consolidation of the two clubs, all of the Locust Club's then employees became employees of the Locust-Midcity Club. In this proceeding, thirty-four of the thirty-six current employees appeared and testified that they did not belong to the union and that they had no intention of becoming members in the future. The chancellor found that the Locust-Midcity Club was a new entity, separate and apart from the former Locust Club, and held that the union was unlawfully picketing the club for the purpose of coercing the club to compel its employees to join the union and granted an injunction. The union's
exceptions to the adjudication were dismissed, and the decree ...