Clarkson v. Laiblan

• Citation: 161 S.W. 660,178 Mo. App. 708
• Parties: CLARKSON v. LAIBLAN et al.
• Decision Date: 02 December 1913
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

161 S.W. 660

178 Mo. A. 708

CLARKSON v. LAIBLAN et al.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 2, 1913.

1. INJUNCTION (§ 99)—SUBJECTS OF PROTECTION —PERSONAL RIGHT—OCCUPATION.

A man's occupation partakes of the character of property entitled to the protection of an injunction.

2. INJUNCTION (§ 101)—PERSONAL RIGHT— INTERFERENCE OF LABOR UNION.

A conspiracy of officers of a local trade union to interfere with, and their actual interference with, the pursuit of plaintiff's business by a threat to his employer to order a strike, whereby plaintiff lost his position as foreman and suffered the cancellation of a subcontract to his substantial injury, might be enjoined.

3. CONSPIRACY (§ 1)—ELEMENTS—INJURY.

A combination of two or more persons by some concerted action, either for the purpose of accomplishing an unlawful act or for the purpose

of accomplishing a lawful act by unlawful means, constitutes a conspiracy.

4. CONSPIRACY (§ 8)—ELEMENTS—INJURY TO BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION.

Since a man's occupation partakes of the character of property, and since he is entitled to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness so long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others, it is unlawful for several persons to conspire together to oppress him through substantial injury to his lawful business or means of livelihood, as by coercing his employer to discharge him and to cancel a subcontract.

5. WORDS AND PHRASES—"BOYCOTT."

A "boycott" is a combination of several persons to cause a loss to a third person, by coercing others to withdraw their business through threats that, unless a compliance with their demands is made, they will cause loss or injury to him; or an organization to form and exclude a person from business relations by intimidation and other acts tending to violence, thereby causing him through fear of injury to submit to dictation in the management of his affairs.

6. INJUNCTION (§ 114)—SUBJECTS OF PROTECTION —INTERFERENCE WITH EMPLOYMENT—PERSONS LIABLE.

The rules of a local union, of which defendants were officers, forbade the employment of union workmen before, with, or to follow nonunion workmen, unless specially authorized; and its business agent, charged with enforcing its regulations, coerced plaintiff's employer by threat of a strike, so that plaintiff lost his job as foreman and also lost a subcontract. Held, that as the agent's acts were done under the established regulations and customs of the union, its other officers were also guilty of a conspiracy, and should be enjoined.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Eugene McQuillin, Judge.

Injunction by James L. Clarkson against Frederick Laiblan, or Frederick Laibly, and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

T. J. Rowe, Thos. J. Rowe, Jr., and Henry Rowe, all of St. Louis, for appellants. Albert R. Hausman, of St. Louis, for respondent.

NORTONI, J.

This is a suit in equity for injunctive relief. The finding and decree were for plaintiff, and defendants prosecute the appeal.

Plaintiff is a journeyman roofer by occupation, and defendants are the business agent and officers of an unincorporated organization known as Local Union No. 1 of the International Brotherhood of Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers of St. Louis, Mo. This organization of which defendants are members is affiliated with a central organization known as the Building Trades Council in the city of St. Louis. At the time complained of, defendant Frederick Laiblan, or Laibly, was president of Local Union No. 1, while defendant Eugene Moriarity was vice president thereof; and defendant Michael McCarthy was recording secretary and Michael Shannon, its financial secretary; Edward J. McCarthy, its treasurer; William Holstein, its door-keeper; and defendant Patrick F. Garvey, its business agent. The several other defendants named in the bill were members of the executive committee of such local union. These defendants were all members of the voluntary association known as Local Union No. 1, and, as before said, were, through it, affiliated with the Central Building Trades Council. All of the building trades, save the bricklayers of the city of St. Louis, were affiliated together in the Building Trades Council but Local Union No. 1, of which these defendants are members, was constituted solely through the co-operation and affiliation of members engaged in the occupation of journeymen composition roofers.

It appears that plaintiff had been a member of Local Union No. 1 from 1903 to 1906, that then he was a journeyman waterproof roofer, and eligible to membership therein. In 1906 he embarked in the roofing business on his own behalf, and became an employer of journeymen roofers, which, under the rules of the union, ipso facto terminated his membership therein. While thus engaged as a contracting roofer, plaintiff employed only members of Local Union No. 1, and complied with all of its rules. In the latter part of January, 1909, plaintiff sold out his business to the St. Louis Roofing Company and was employed by the general manager of that concern as a roofer. He worked one day for that company and was laid off. Thereupon Mr. Holland, the manager of St. Louis Roofing Company, sent word from his office to the shop foreman that plaintiff should be placed in charge of a gang of men as foreman at 60 cents per hour. On the morning of February 21, 1909, plaintiff appeared at the shop of the St. Louis Roofing Company and reported for work to the foreman. Defendant Patrick F. Garvey, business agent for Local Union No. 1, was at the shop of the St. Louis Roofing Company at the time, as was his custom, for it is said he was present there every morning to see that no nonunion workmen were given work in preference to those who were members of the union. The foreman of the St. Louis Roofing Company handed a yellow slip of paper to plaintiff, indicating his position as foreman of a gang of roofers to which he had been assigned by Mr. Holland, the general manager. When defendant Garvey, business agent of the union, saw plaintiff in possession of the yellow slip, he inquired of Haley, the shop foreman, whether or not all of the other men there in attendance were to be given work that morning, and Haley replied in the negative. Thereupon, Garvey said to Haley, "This man (meaning plaintiff) don't go to work either then." In obedience to Garvey's command, Haley took from plaintiff his yellow slip of paper and dispensed with his services as foreman. Plaintiff and Garvey then entered into a conversation about plaintiff joining the union. On the following night, plaintiff applied to Local Union No. 1 for membership therein and was present in the ante room, waiting action on his application. All of the defendants here were at that meeting, unless it be Hurley, and it appears they considered plaintiff's application for membership, but deferred action thereon. Soon thereafter, plaintiff submitted another application, but it is said it was rejected, and plaintiff was advised by defendant Garvey that this was because he had applied to the office through Mr. Holland for work instead of coming to the shop where Garvey was stationed.

Thereafter, on March 16, 1909, plaintiff entered into a contract with St. Louis Roofing Company to roof a building to be occupied by the Rohan Boiler Works, and 14 houses in Parkview. He entered upon this work as subcontractor, and on March 20th, just as he was completing the task of roofing the building to be occupied by the Rohan Boiler Works, defendant Garvey called upon him there and inquired what plaintiff was doing. Plaintiff informed Garvey he was roofing the building as subcontractor for the St. Louis Roofing Company, whereupon Garvey said to plaintiff, "You know we ain't going to let you do that." And plaintiff said in reply, "I don't see why. I telephoned for men and you wouldn't send them to me, and I couldn't...