The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918. Page: 895

                                
KROGER GROCERY & B. CO. V. RETAIL CLERK'S I. P. ASS'N    895
that no person should be employed unless he was a member of the un-
ion, or became a member of the union within 30 days; otherwise, the
contract would be void, and the strike renewed. Of course, that means
only one thing; that as long as the strike lasted every employ in the
plaintiff's store would be required to leave their employ the moment
he became a member of the union, because, as has been testified, any
member of the union who would continue to work there, or would ac-
cept employment after that, would immediately be expelled, and we
know a union strike would be a futile and foolish thing if the members
disregarded its rules and failed to strike when ordered to do so.
The next question is: Were the acts of the defendants unlawful
by reason of the fact that by ordering this strike, and inducing so many
of the employs of the plaintiff to withdraw from employment, 85 of
the 140 retail stores of this plaintiff had to be closed by reason of the
strikes, causing a loss of the value of $36,000 of perishable food, such
an unlawful act as would justify the court, in view of the Food Con-
servation Act of Congress, to grant the writ of injunction. That act
provides:
"That it is unlawful under this act for any person or persons to knowingly
commit waste or willfully to permit preventable deterioration of any necessa-
ries in or in connection with their production, or distribution."
And furthermore it makes it an offense for any person to restrict
the distribution of any necessaries, or do anything whereby transporta-
tion, producing, harvesting, manufacturing, supply, or dealing in any
necessaries of life is interfered with. If these defendants, by reason
of their acts, caused a loss of all this perishable food, they were cer-
tainly guilty of a violation of this act, and in the opinion of the court it
would be wholly immaterial whether it was done by violence, threats,
intimidation, or otherwise. The owner of this perishable food would
be entitled to the aid of a court of equity of the United States to re-
strain them from acts which will cause still greater destruction of such
food. The evidence shows that this plaintiff, in every one of the
stores, dealt in meats, butter, eggs, vegetables, oleomargarine, lard, and
other perishable goods; that they were also bakers, and dealt in breads,
cakes, pies, and pastries; and, of course, these defendants, who had
been employes of the plaintiff, knew these facts, and they must have
known that, if the stores were closed, especially on Friday and Satur-
day, that these food products would naturally deteriorate, if not alto-
gether spoil and be wasted.
The court is not wilhng to believe that the strike was called on
Friday for the reason that they knew there would be more perishable
goods on Friday and Saturday, which could not be carried over Sun-
day, and that caused them to strike on that day, as claimed by counsel
for plaintiff. The court is unwilling to ascribe to these defendants
such a despicable, willful act. They are as much interested in the
production and in the cheapness of food as anybody; in fact, more
so than people of large means. I believe they never gave it any
thought; at least, I am unwilling to believe that they started the strike
on that day on that account, but rather believe it took them some days
before they could organize the union, and it took some few days before