BLACKLISTING. A list of names of per sons kept for the purpose of prohibiting or recommending against dealings with them.
The publication of such a list is libellous per se unless justified or privileged ; Hart nett v. Plumbers' Supply Ass'n, 169 Mass. 229, 47 N. E. 1002, 38 L. R. A. 194 ; Nettles v. Somervell, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 627, 25 S. W. 658 ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pritch ett, 108 Ga. 411, 34 S. E. 216. To blacklist has been held not to impute the commission of a crime or other conduct exposing one to public hatred, punishment, disgrace or derision ; Wabash R. Co. v. Young, 162 Ind. 103, 69 N. E. 1003, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1091. False statements manifestly hurtful to a man in his credit or business and intended to be so are not privileged ; Weston v. Barni coat, 175 Mass. 454, 56 N. E. 619, 49 L. R. A. 612; nor are communications sent to the members of an organization for the purpose of coercing the payment of the claims of the Persons publishing such communication ; Muetze v. Tuteur, 77 Wis. 236, 46 N. W. 123, 9 L. R. A. 86, 20 Am. St. Rep. 115. See COM MERCIAL AGENCY ; LIBEL.
A more general understanding of the term is that it has reference to the practice of one employer presenting to another the names of employes for the purpose of furnishing information concerning their standing as em ployes ; State v. Justus, 85 Minn. 279, 88 N. W. 759, 56 L. R. A. 757, 89 Am. St. Rep. 550.
In the report of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission, May, 1903, it is described as a combination among employers not to employ workmen discharged by any of the members of the coal combination, and in this sense it is recognized by the legislative enactments in many of the states which prohibit employ ers from blacklisting an employe with the intent of preventing his employment by oth ers. But many of these acts also contain a provision that they shall not be construed as preventing an employer from a truthful statement of the cause of dis charge. Such an act is held not to be in vio lation of the 14th amendment and not to be class legislation ; State v. Justus, 85 Minn. 279, 88 N. W. 759, 56 L. R. A. 757, 89 Am. St. Rep. 550 ; Joyce v. R. Co., 100 Minn. 225, 110 N. W. 975, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 756.
In the absence of malice, it is not libel ous to circulate a blacklist of workmen among officials whose duty it is to employ them ; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., v. Richmond, 73 Tex. 568, 11 S. W. 555, 4 L. R. A. 280, 15 Am. St. Rep. 794; and a record may be kept
of the reasons, for the discharge of a rail way servant and communicated to persons interested ; Hebner v. R. Co., 78 Minn. 289, 80 N. W. 1128, 79 Am, St. Rep. 387. Such a communication, when the employe was dis charged for gross neglect of duty, was held privileged ; [1891] 2 Q. B. 189 ; but blacklist ing was held libelous in Hartnett v. Plumb ers' Supply Ass'n, 169 Mass. 229, 47 N. E. 1002, 38 L. R. A. 194.
An agreement among several railroad com panies not to employ a person discharged for a good cause by any of them is not le gally injurious, unless the statements are false and the person has sought and been refused employment elsewhere ; Hundley v. R. Co., 105 Ky. 162, 48 S. W. 429, 63 L. R. A. 289, 88 Am. St. Rep. 298; nor is an agree ment among employers not to employ those, who leave without cause and refuse to con form to certain rules an unlawful combina tion or conspiracy ; Willis v. Mfg. Co., 120 Ga. 597, 48 S. E. 177, 1 Ann. Cas. 472. It has been said that an agreement of employ-1 ers not to employ a particular person, in or der more effectively to compete with em ployes, is not distinguishable from an agree ment of laborers not to work for a particu-1 lar person; 17 Harv. L. R. but see tison v. R. Co., 3 Oh. S. C. & C. P. 526, where such a combination of employers was de clared illegal. • Striking employds, whose names were in a blacklist sent to other employers in the same city, may not unite in an action. If a right exists, it is in favor of each one sepa rately ; Worthington v. Waring, 157 Mass. 421, 32 N. E. 744, 20 L. R. A. 342, 34 Am. St. Rep. 294.
An injunction will not be granted to re strain a company from placing employds' names on a blacklist, or from maintaining such a list and permitting other employers to inspect it ; Boyer v. Tel. Co., 124 Fed. 246; but see Casey v. Cincinnati Typograph ical Union No. 3, 45 Fed. 135, 12 L. R. A. 193, where the publication of posters, circu lars, etc., by employes for the purpose of carrying out a conspiracy to boycott was restrained by injunction.
A blacklisting statute requiring a corpo ration to give to its employes service letters the true reason for their discharge does not deprive it of the equal protection of the laws under the 14th amendment; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. Hixon (Tex.) 126 S. W. 338.
See BOYCOTT ; COMBINATION ; CONSPIRACY ; INJUNCTION,; LIBEL; LABOR UNION.