Carlson v. Carpenter Contractors' Ass'n of Chicago

• Decision Date: 13 December 1922
• Docket Number: 14777.,Nos. 14776,s. 14776
• Citation: 305 Ill. 331,137 N.E. 222
• Parties: CARLSON v. CARPENTER CONTRACTORS' ASS'N OF CHICAGO et al. (two cases).
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

305 Ill. 331

137 N.E. 222

CARLSON

v.CARPENTER CONTRACTORS' ASS'N OF CHICAGO et al. (two cases).

Nos. 14776, 14777.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 21, 1922.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 13, 1922.

Action by John Carlson against the Carpenter Contractors' Association of Chicago and others. A judgment for defendant in the municipal court was reversed and rendered for plaintiff, in the Appellate Court for the First District, and defendants appeal. Action by Oscar Carlson against the same defendants. Judgment for plaintiff in the municipal court was affirmed by the Appellate Court for the First District, and defendants appeal.

Judgments affirmed.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Municipal Court of Chicago; Wells M. Cook, Judge.

John H. S. Lee, Albert Fink, Robert W. Childs, and James B. Wescott, all of Chicago, for appellants.

Hope Thompson, of Chicago, for appellees.

THOMPSON, C. J.

John Carlson, plaintiff in No. 14776, is a journeyman carpenter and a member of the carpenters' union. July 18, 1919, and for a long time prior thereto, he was in the employ of Simon Hill, a contractor who did not belong to a contractors' organization. Hill had work to be done, and desired to retain Carlson in his employ, and Carlson was able and willing to work, and desired to continue his employment. Representatives of the union of which Carlson was a member had signed a working agreement with the Carpenter Contractors' Association, one of the defendants, which did not expire until 1921. This agreement provided, among other things, that there should be no strikes or lockouts without the sanction of a joint conference board composed of members of the contracting parties, and that the minimum rate of wages until May 31, 1921, should be 80 cents an hour. Notwithstanding this agreement the representatives of the carpenters in June, 1919, presented to representatives of the contractors a demand that the minimum rate of wages be increased to $1 an hour, giving as their reason the increased cost of living. Following this demand the contractors agreed to increase the wages 12 1/2 cents an hour, but refused to grant the rate demanded. Thereupon July 9, 1919, a general strike was called, in violation of the working agreement. Those contractors or members of the public who were willing to pay $1 an hour to carpenters were allowed by the carpenters' union to proceed with their work without molestation. Hill agreed to pay Carlson $1 an hour, and Carlson continued in his employ. Oscar Carlson, plaintiff in No. 14777, was in July, 1919, engaged in erecting a building for himself. He is not a carpenter nor a carpenter contractor. After the strike was called he continued to employ union carpenters, and paid them the wages demanded. A week after the strike was called the CarpenterContractors' Association and the Building Construction Employers' Association declared a lockout of all union workmen in the building trades throughout Lake and Cook counties and the members of such contracting associations ceased operations. This lockout had little, if any, effecton the situation, because all the union workmen had left the employ of the associated contractors before the lockout was declared. After the associated contractors left the field, independent contractors who had been operating in Cook and Lake counties continued to employ union carpenters, and new contractors entered the field and employed the striking carpenters at the wage demanded. In order to make the lockout effective the associated contractors sought and secured the aid of the dealers in building material. After several conferences the material dealers agreed, at the request of these contractors, who had theretofore been their best and largest customers, representing about 80 per cent. of their business, to cease selling and delivering materials to any person employing or about to employ union carpenters or other union labor in the building trades. Thereafter independent contractors, private builders and members of the general public were refused material for the purpose of erecting or repairing buildings, and as a result of their inability to obtain building materials they were compelled to discharge workmen, although willing to pay the wages demanded and to comply with all other requirements of the unions. As a result of the refusal of the material dealers to sell and deliver material Simon Hill was forced to discharge John Carlson, and Oscar Carlson was not able to complete his building.

John Carlson filed a statement of claim in the municipal court against the unincorporated associations of employers, the officers and certain members of these associations and 22 dealers in building material, all of which defendants have their offices in the city of Chicago. After stating the facts substantially as we have stated them, he alleged that--

The defendants did ‘unlawfully and maliciously enter into an agreement, combination and conspiracy to injure the employment of such [union] carpenters, including the plaintiff, and to boycott said carpenters, including the plaintiff, and in furtherance of such agreement, combination and conspiracy the defendants conspired to prevent, and did prevent, the sale of lumber and other building materials in said counties of Cook and Lake, Ill., and particularly in the city of Chicago, to any and all persons employing, or about to employ, said carpenters, including the plaintiff; and said defendants, without any legal justification or excuse whatsoever, did specifically prevent the sale of lumber and other building material to the said Simon Hill, who was then and there employing plaintiff, for the express purpose of thereby compelling said Simon Hill to discharge the plaintiff and any other carpenters who might then be in the employ of Simon Hill,’ and that by reason of such conspiracy plaintiff was deprived of employment for a period of nine weeks.

Oscar Carlson filed his statement of claim in the municipal court against the same defendants, and after a statement of the facts alleged that said defendants, ‘without any legal justification or excuse whatsoever, did prevent the sale of lumber and other building material to the plaintiff for the sole purpose of thereby preventing the plaintiff from giving employment to carpenters,’ and that by reason of such refusal to sell material he was deprived of the use of his building for two months. A trial was had before the court without a jury, and it denied damages to John Carlson, and awarded damages in the amount of $340 to Oscar Carlson. On appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District the judgment against John Carlson was reversed, and a judgment entered in his favor in the sum of $396. The judgment in favor of Oscar Carlson was affirmed. Certificates of importance were granted, and these appeals prosecuted.

Propositions of law and of fact were submitted to the municipal court, and the court's action on these propositions shows that it found as an ultimate fact that the defendants formed their combination and refused to sell and deliver building materials...