Tri-City Central Trades Council v. American Steel Foundries

• Decision Date: 06 December 1916
• Docket Number: 2157.
• Citation: 238 F. 728
• Parties: TRI-CITY CENTRAL TRADES COUNCIL et al. v. AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

238 F. 728

TRI-CITY CENTRAL TRADES COUNCIL et al. v. AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES.

No. 2157.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

December 6, 1916

Rehearing Denied January 24, 1917. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

F. C Smith, of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.

William E. Wheeler, of East St. Louis, Ill., and Max Pam, of Chicago Ill., for appellee.

Appellants, herein called defendants, appeal from the final decree entered in favor of appellee, herein called plaintiff, enjoining defendants as follows: 'It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the said defendants, the Tri-City Central Trades Council, its officers and agents, and Harry McKenny, Ted Ishmann, Earl Galloway, William Thornberg, C. Thornberg, Tom Churchill, Clay Holmes, Eddie Roach, John Aldridge, Isaac Cook, Benj. F. Lamb, J. P. McDonough, and C. E. Gerlich, and each of them, and all persons combining with, acting in concert with, or under their direction, control or advice, or under the direction, control, or advice of any of them, and all persons whomsoever, be and are hereby perpetually restrained and enjoined from in any way or manner whatsoever, by use of persuasion, threats, or personal injury, intimidation, suggestion of danger, or threats of violence of any kind, from interfering with, hindering, obstructing, or stopping any person engaged in the employ of the American Steel Foundries in connection with its business or its foundry in the city of Granite City, county of Madison, state of Illinois, or elsewhere, and from interfering by persuasion, violence, or threats of violence in any manner with any person desiring to be employed by said American Steel Foundries in its said foundry or plant, and from inducing or attempting to compel or induce by persuasion, threats, intimidation, force, or violence, or putting in fear or suggestion of danger, any of the employes of the American Steel Foundries, or persons seeking employment with it, so as to cause them to refuse to perform any of their duties as employes of the American Steel Foundries, and from preventing any person by persuasion, threats, intimidation, force, or violence, or suggestion of danger or violence, from entering into the employ of the said American Steel Foundries, and from protecting, aiding, or assisting any person or persons in committing any of said acts: and from assembling, loitering, or congregating about or in proximity of the said plant or factory of the American Steel Foundries, for the purpose of doing, or aiding or encouraging others in doing, any of the said unlawful or forbidden acts or things, and from picketing or maintaining at or near the premises of the complainant, or on the streets, leading to the premises of said complainant, any picket or pickets, and from doing any acts or things whatever in furtherance of any conspiracy or combination among them, or any of them, to obstruct or interfere with said American Steel Foundries, its officers, agents, or employes, in the free and unrestrained control and operation of its plant, foundry, and property, and the operation of its business, and also from ordering, directing, aiding, assisting, or in any manner abetting any person committing any or either of the acts aforesaid, and also from entering upon the grounds, foundry, or premises of the American Steel Foundries, without first obtaining its consent, and from injuring or destroying any of the property of the American Steel Foundries.'

Plaintiff instituted this suit to prevent alleged threatened injury to its business and threatened destruction of its manufacturing plant, located at Granite City, Ill., claimed to be worth $1,000,000, which it alleges the Tri-City Trades Council, a labor organization, and other defendants, former employes of plaintiff or members of the Council, were injuring and threatening to destroy. It alleges the Tri-City Trades Council attempted to force plaintiff to raise the wage paid its employes, and to accomplish its object called a strike of plaintiff's employes. In the course of the strike picketing was resorted to, and the defendants sought the support of nonstriking and prospective employes. Plaintiff further claimed that its employes were assaulted by defendants and by those engaged in picketing the shops, and that prospective employes had been so intimidated by defendants that they refused to enter plaintiff's employment. The gravamen of the plaintiff's bill is found in the following therefrom: 'Your orator further represents that the said defendants have combined and conspired to prevent your orator from employing skilled laborers at its plant, although such skilled laborers and your orator have agreed upon terms of employment that are mutually agreeable and satisfactory; that in carrying out such combination and conspiracy the defendants began picketing said plant of your orator on or about April 23, 1914; that the said defendants, on April 23d and since that time, have caused various numbers of men or pickets, to wit, 5 to 30 men, to be stationed adjacent to the main gate of your orator's said plant, which said pickets from that day until the present time have threatened to assault, mistreat, and injure various of the employes of your orator unless said employes ceased from their work; that said defendants so combining did on April 29, 1914, cause two of your orator's employes to be assaulted by said pickets,' etc.

Defendants denied any and all acts of violence or assaults of any nature. On the other hand, they claimed that strike-breakers attempted to shoot the striking employes, and were urged so to do by representatives of plaintiff. Defendants also denied the existence of any unlawful conspiracy among them, but did admit 'that said Tri-City Central Trades Council did place certain ones on certain streets and avenues leading to said plant charged with doing picket duty, but such ones were stationed 100 yards from such mill, and they were instructed to notify all persons who sought to enter the plant that there was a strike on, because of such reduction in wages, and such pickets were instructed to use all honorable means to persuade such ones to not enter such plant, and not to take the places of the laboring men, who had gone on a strike on account of such reduction of wages.'

The District Judge, in rendering his opinion, said: 'This evidence clearly shows

that this union, this trades council, by the testimony of its officers, entered upon the work of preventing this complainant from getting men to run its factory, run its plant, except upon the condition that it pay a certain scale, the November scale. That combination was illegal. ' Speaking of picketing he said: 'However, speaking upon this question, I should say a word about picketing. There is no such thing as peaceful picketing. You might as well talk about peaceful violence. You may as well think of peaceful war as peaceful picketing. Considerable experience in this position, and having these cases frequently before me, has taught me that there is no such thing as peaceful picketing.'

Defendants attack the decree on three grounds: (a) The evidence does not justify the issuance of any injunction. (b) The restraining order is too broad, and restrains defendants from doing lawful acts. (c) The court is without jurisdiction, because the amount involved does not exceed $3,000.

Before MACK, ALSCHULER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

EVANS Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

Defendants' claim that the court was without jurisdiction is without merit. The necessary diversity of citizenship appears. The amount involved exceeds $3,000. It was not necessary that $3,000 worth of property should be destroyed before the federal court acquired jurisdiction. The alleged threatened damage far exceeded the statutory sum necessary to give the district court jurisdiction.

Defendants contend that the evidence did not justify the court in granting any injunction. We are not able to say that the record presents a situation that did not warrant some action by the court. It is apparent that a situation had developed where fights had occurred and threats had been made,...