Complainant seeks reinstatement in a moving picture operators union from which he was suspended and an adjudication as to the legality of certain of its by-laws, rules and regulations. Under the by-laws all operators' jobs within the jurisdiction of the local are considered and parceled out by the local as its property, and any member may be expelled for bringing an action against the union before exhausting all remedies within the union. This by-law was passed some months after complainant was dismissed for consulting a lawyer respecting his rights as a member of the union and also for objecting to payment for a relief man when complainant was arbitrarily called from his job to appear at once before an officer for failing to pay weekly dues. Held, the actions of the union's executive committee are clearly arbitrary; the bill raises serious charges with respect to the substantial rights of which complainant has been deprived and alleges that it would be useless to pursue remedies within the union because of prejudice; and unless complainant is reinstated pending the determination of this cause he will suffer from lack of employment, since no job in the jurisdiction of the union is open to him without its consent first had.
PER 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, TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, DILL, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.