Central Metal Products Corp. v. O'Brien

• Decision Date: 05 January 1922
• Docket Number: 683.
• Citation: 278 F. 827
• Parties: CENTRAL METAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION v. O'BRIEN et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

278 F. 827

CENTRAL METAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION v. O'BRIEN et al.

No. 683.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

January 5, 1922

Stanley & Horwitz, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Walter Gordon Merritt, of New York City, for plaintiff.

J. Paul Thompson and W. J. Dawley, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants.

WESTENHAVER District Judge.

This cause has been heard, argued, and submitted on plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction.

The affidavits, exhibits, and the briefs of counsel and authorities therein cited have been fully and carefully examined and considered. Press of business prevents the preparation and filing of an extended opinion at this time and the urgency of the matter is such that it should be disposed of without delay; hence my conclusion only will be briefly stated.

Plaintiff is, and for a long time past has been, engaged in the business of manufacturing, erecting, and installing metal doors, metal frames, transoms, and sash. It has two factories and places of business, one at Canton, Ohio, and the other at College Point, Long Island. Its method of doing business is to manufacture its product at one or the other of its plants ship it to the buildings where the same is to be installed and personally, by means of its agents and other employees, to erect and install it. On June 30, 1921, it duly entered into a contract in writing with the defendant the city of Cleveland, through its duly authorized agents, to furnish, deliver, set up, and install certain interior metal doors, metal sash, metal frames, and casings for the City Hospital of the city of Cleveland, then and since under construction. The amount of this contract aggregates the sum of $224,000. That this contract was duly and legally entered into, that the city of Cleveland has not any right to cancel or terminate it, and that the plaintiff is free to select and employ any competent labor to perform this work of installation, are matters not in dispute. It follows, therefore, that plaintiff's right to this contract, to perform the same, and to reap the profits resulting to it from such performance, is a right of property standing upon the same legal basis and entitled to the same legal protection as is any person's right to full possession and ownership of his private dwelling.

The defendant William O'Brien is vice president of the Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers' International Alliance and secretary of Local Union No. 65 of that Alliance; J. T. Nester is business agent of Local No. 65, and the defendants Frank Vancourt, Glenn B. Lockwood, William Kerver, David Kahn, and J. Thompson are members of Local No. 65. The Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers' International Alliance and Local Union No. 65 are both unincorporated, voluntary associations, and these individuals are made defendants as members of Local No. 65 representing the total membership, which it is alleged exceeds 30 in number and are too numerous to be made defendants. The defendant J. Harold MacDowell is architect of the city of Cleveland, having supervision on behalf of the city over the construction of the said City Hospital, and Dudley Blossom, at the time this bill was filed and the case heard, was director of public welfare of said city, and either had or assumed charge of supervising and directing the construction work on said hospital.

The plaintiff fabricated the material at one of its plants, shipped it to and delivered it upon the City Hospital premises, and began the work of installation some time early in October, 1921. The plaintiff sent its supervisory staff to said hospital and employed union carpenters at the union wage scale and on union terms and conditions, and members of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America to perform the actual work of erection and installation. William O'Brien and J. T. Nester, acting on behalf of Local No. 65 and the Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers' International Alliance, demanded that this work of installation should be done by the members of their sheet metal workers' union. Complainant refused to comply with this request, for reasons immaterial to mention, because entirely within its legal rights. Upon this refusal, said O'Brien and Nester then demanded of the architect and director of public welfare that plaintiff be required to discharge its union carpenters and employ members of its sheet metal workers' union to perform this labor or to break the contract of the city with plaintiff and take over the work and do it itself with employees, members of the sheet metal workers' union. This demand not having been acceded to with sufficient promptness, defendants O'Brien and Nester called a strike by withdrawing union sheet metal workers who were working for other contractors on the City Hospital, about the latter part of October, 1921, and, the officials of the city still not acceding to the demand, later, the latter part of November, a further strike was called by withdrawing sheet metal workers, members of Local No. 65, from working for contractors who were engaged upon the Auditorium Building under construction on behalf of the city. There is evidence tending to show that threats were also made to call strikes of sheet metal workers, members of Local No. 65, on school buildings under construction on behalf of the board of education, and also of having other strikes called by other sympathetic unions on the City Hospital and the City Auditorium, which evidence, however, is denied by defendants, and is, for the purposes of the present hearing, regarded as not proved.

Later, the latter part of November or the early part of December, the defendant J. H. MacDowell, city architect, and Dudley Blossom, director of public welfare, acceded to the demands of the defendants representing Local No. 65. They directed plaintiff to discontinue further erection work, and upon refusal of plaintiff, through its employees, so to do, police officers of the city of Cleveland, acting under some unknown and undisclosed authority, appeared at the City Hospital building and excluded plaintiff's employees from the premises and prevented further performance, under threat of arrest. The architect and director of public welfare, while assuming to act on behalf of the city of Cleveland, do not appear to have been acting under any other authority than such as was assumed or usurped by them. Upon this hearing, affidavits were filed on behalf of the city, and argument was made by an assistant to the director of law in support of the position taken by the architect and director of public welfare. Early in December, after procuring from said architect and director of public welfare written assurances that plaintiff must employ members of the sheet metal workers' union or that its contract would be broken and further work of installation done by the city, said O'Brien and Nester caused the sheet metal workers to return to work on the City Auditorium and for other contractors on the City Hospital, but plaintiff has since been unable, by reason of the conduct complained of, to proceed further with its work, which is now at a standstill.

Such in brief, are the main outstanding facts. No other conclusion therefrom can be drawn than that the defendants have entered into a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of its property and to injure its business. A conspiracy is an agreement of two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, or to commit a lawful act by unlawful means. It is immaterial if the city or its architect and...