
    Salvatore Lo Bianco, complainant-respondent, v. George Cushing et al., defendants-appellants.
    [Submitted February 16th, 1934.
    Decided April 12th, 1934.]
    On appeal from an order of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Berry, who expressed the following views:
    “The bill seeks the reinstatement of the complainant as a member of the Union County Moving Picture Machine Operators Local No. 485 and an adjudication as to the legality of certain by-laws, rules and regulations of the local and international bodies. Amongst these rules and regulations is one which provides that all moving picture machine operators’ jobs within the jurisdiction of the local are to be the property of the local itself, and the fact is, as shown by both the moving and the answering affidavits, that the jobs are so considered and parceled out amongst the members according to the will or whim of the business agent. Another rule, regulation or by-law, is that making a member liable to expulsion for bringing an action at law against the union before exhausting all remedies within the union. The bill alleges that because of prejudice it would be useless to pursue these remedies. It further appears from the affidavits that the by-law, under the provision of which the complainant was expelled from membership in the union, was adopted some months after the filing of the present bill. It is alleged that an agreement was entered into between the complainant and the defendants by the terms of which the complainant was obligated to discontinue the proceedings, but this is denied. In any event, the proceedings were not discontinued, but they have been amended and supplemented. The present proceedings are a continuation of the original proceedings and were begun by bill filed in February of this year. The main offense of which the complainant is alleged to be guilty is that he consulted a lawyer with respect to his rights as a member of the union. The defendants take the position that to do this before first using the facilities of the union itself for settlement of the dispute is such an unconscionable act and indicates such an ‘unbrotherly attitude’ as to demonstrate the complainant to be unworthy of membership in this ‘fraternal’ organization. Another offense was his objection to the payment of $1.50 for a relief man when he was arbitrarily called to attend upon an officer of the union and explain why he had not paid his weekly dues. Immediate personal appearance before this officer was required and this necessitated the complainant’s abandoning his work during his hours of duty. The requirement of immediate attendance before this officer was arbitrary, to say the least, and the same may be said of every official action and every action of the executive committee with respect to the complainant’s charges of violation of his rights. The arbitrary exercise of authority by the union officers is plainly apparent from the defendants’ own affidavits. The bill of complaint raises serious questions with respect to the substantial rights of the complainant of which he has been deprived. The position taken by the defendants is that pending the determination of complainant’s rights, he can be expelled, and, to use the language of Vice-Chancellor Bigelow in Harris v. Deiver, 112 N. J. Eq. 99, 'and starve’ because it is obvious from the answering as well as the supporting affidavits, that the complainant must have the approval of the Union County Moving Picture Machine Operators Local No. 485 before he can obtain employment within the jurisdiction of that union. The union claims to own all the jobs and apparently exercises the rights of ownership in an arbitrary manner.
    ''I will advise an order directing the reinstatement of the complainant as a member of this union pending the determination of the issues in this cause.”
    
      Mr. Thomas L. Hanson, Mr. George McElroy and Mr. 8am Weiss, for the appellants.
    
      Messrs. McCarter & English, for the respondent.
   Pee Curiam.

The order appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed by Vice-Chancellor Berry in the court of chancery.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Teenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, Dill, JJ. 15.

For reversal — -None.  