Analogous to the sympathetic strike, is the strike for the so-called "closed shop"; that is, as the term is frequently used, for the employment of all employes from certain organizations or associations exclusively. An actual or threatened strike for the purpose of compelling an employer to exclude non-union men from his employment, and to run a "closed shop," is held, in many jurisdictions, to be an unlawful violation of the rights of the employer and of his prospective employes.1 In some jurisdictions, however, such purpose is held to be a lawful purpose.2 In other cases it has been held, by reason of the special facts of the case, that conduct of union men in refusing to work with non-union men, and thus prevent the latter from obtaining employment, was not a wrongful act, and accordingly an injunction against such conduct has been refused where no further element of wrong was shown to exist.3 In these cases emphasis is laid upon the right of every man to choose such associates in work as he pleases, especially in view of the fact that every employe assumes the risk of injury from the negligence of his fellow-employes. Two points distinguish National Protective Association v. Cummings4 from the cases in which the employes are held to be guilty of a tort in striking to cause the discharge of another employe: (1) The real trouble was between rival labor unions. The strike may be, therefore, held to be merely a protective measure, and to come under the doctrine of competition.5 (2) The union whose members refused to work, required an examination as to qualifications for work as a condition precedent to admission. Considerable importance is attached to this fact in the opinion of the court, as showing that the union men were unwilling to assume the risk of working with men outside of their union, whose efficiency had not been thus tested.

3Giblan v. National Amalgamated Laborer' Union [1903]. 2 K. B. 600.

National Amalgamated Laborers' Union [1903]. 2 K. B. 600.

5 Meier v. Speir, 96 Ark. 618, 32 L. R. A. (N.S.) 792, 132 S. W. 988; J. F. Parkinson Co. v. Building Trades Council. 154 Cal. 581. 21 L. R.A. (N.S.) 550, 98 Pac. 1027.

See also. J. F. Parkinson Co. v. Building Trades Council, 154 Cal. 581, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 550, 98 Pac. 1027.

1 England. Valentine v. Hyde [1919], 2 Ch. 128. (It is not a trade dispute within the meaning of a statutory provision for such disputes.)

United States. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U. S. 229, 62 L. ed. 260, L. R. A. 1918C, 497: Niles-Bement-Pond Co. v. Iron Molders' Union, 246 Fed. 851.

California. J. F. Parkinson Co. v. Building Trades Council, 154 Cal. 581, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 550, 98 Pac. 1027.

Illinois. Barnes v. Chicago Typographical Union, 232 111. 424, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1018, 83 N. E. 940.

Massachusetts. Reynolds v. Davis, 198 Mass. 294, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 162, 84 N. E. 457; Folsom v. Lewis, 208 Mass. 336. 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 787, 94 N E. 316.

This is especially true if the employer and his employes have agreed to run a non-union plant. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U. S. 229, 62 L. ed. 260, L. R. A. 1918C, 497.

2 Cohn & Roth Electric Co. v. Bricklayers', Masons' &, Plasterers' Local Union, 92 Conn. 161, 101 Atl. 659.

3 National Protective Union v. Camming, 170 N. Y. 315, 88 Am. St. Rep. 648, 58 L. R. A. 135, 63 N. E. 369. (Three judges dissenting.) (Distinguishing, Curran v. Galen, 152 N. Y. 33. 57 Am. St. Rep. 496, 37 L. R. A. 802, 46 N. E. 297, as a case in which the discharge was caused by threats and use of false reports.) The same view was expressed in Jersey City Printing Co. v. Cassidy, 63 N. J. Eq. 759, 53 Atl. 230, where the employer sought an injunction; while the right to strike because of discharge of non-union men was recognized, injunction was granted, as violence was employed.