Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering

• Decision Date: 23 April 1917
• Docket Number: 74.
• Citation: 247 F. 192
• Parties: DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. v. DEERING et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

247 F. 192

DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. v. DEERING et al.

No. 74.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

April 23, 1917

Austin McLanahan & Merritt, of New York City, for complainant.

Frank X. Sullivan, of New York City, and Frank L. Mulholland, of Toledo, Ohio, for defendants.

MANTON District Judge.

The complainant, a manufacturer of printing presses, has its principal place of business at Battle Creek, Mich., and sells its products throughout the United States. The defendants are officers of the International Association of Machinists, and are named as parties defendant individually and in their representative capacities as business agents of the International Association of Machinists and the Riggers' Protective Union, in which they respectively hold offices. They have appeared and answered as individuals, and, it appears, process has not been served upon the associations of which they are the representatives. The relief sought is an injunction restraining and enjoining them from interfering with the complainant's trade and good will, and in preventing the complainant from securing skilled mechanics to carry on its business of producing, hauling, and erecting printing presses for customers in New York state and other states, and in preventing the complainant from securing orders and contracts for the sale and installation of printing presses, and from interfering with the sale carting, installation, use, or operation of printing presses made by the complainant, and to generally restrain the defendants from doing any and all acts whatsoever in furtherance of a combination or conspiracy charged in the complaint, said to exist for the purpose of accomplishing the acts charged against the defendants. Relief is further asked--

'restraining the defendants from publishing, circulating, or otherwise communicating, either directly or indirectly, in writing or orally, to any person or corporation, any statement or notice of any kind or character whatsoever, calling attention to the fact that the complainant or its business or its products are or were or have been declared unfair, or are on any unfair list, or that the complainant should not be patronized or dealt with, or its printing presses purchased, used, handled hauled, operated, worked upon, or dealt in, because made in an open or nonunion shop, and from publishing, circulating or communicating, either orally or in writing, any representation or statement of like effect or import, in any manner that will injure or interfere with the complainant's business, or with the free and unrestricted right of the complainant to dispose of its printing presses and to obtain contracts and orders for printing presses to be manufactured and installed by the complainant; from giving notices verbally or in writing to any person, firm, or corporation to refrain from soliciting, making, or carrying out contracts with complainant for the purchase, carting, installation, operation, exhibition, advertisement, or display of printing presses made by the complainant, or to refrain from purchasing, hauling, installing, using, handling, or operating printing presses of any kind made by complainant, under threats that if such contracts or purchases are made or carried out, or such work is done, they will cause the person so notified loss, trouble, or inconvenience, or that they will interfere with and prevent the complainant from carrying out said contracts, or that they will cause persons employed by others to do work in connection with said presses, or upon buildings or in connection with exhibitions where said presses are to be displayed, used, or installed, to withdraw from work upon said building or in connection with said exhibitions, or that they will cause persons not to exhibit at said exhibition; and from attempting to prevent the sale, carting, installation, use, operation, exhibition, or display of printing presses manufactured by complainant, or the performance of contracts made by the complainant, by inducing or attempting to induce any person or persons whomsoever to decline employment, or cease employment, or not to seek employment, under any persons, firms, or corporations, or representatives of the complainant engaged in the work of hauling, carting, installing, handling, using, or operating said printing presses for customers, because the complainant does not observe union regulations in Battle Creek, Michigan; and from preventing or attempting to prevent the complainant from exhibiting its said presses at any exhibition or exposition, or advertising said presses, by threatening any persons or corporations having charge of such exposition or advertising, or any person or corporation doing business with them, with labor difficulties or loss of patronage, if your complainant is allowed to exhibit or advertise, and from inducing any person or persons employed by said exposition company or advertising agency, or any person or corporation doing business with them, to cease employment, or to decline employment, or to remain out of employment, of said exhibitors or exposition company as long as the complainant is allowed to take part in said exhibition; and from inducing any person or corporation not to do business with or work for any person or corporation because such person or corporation may have, or purposes to have, or formerly had, business relations with complainant; and from inciting or intentionally causing strikes or labor troubles among men employed by customers, representatives, or agents of the complainant outside of Battle Creek, Mich., where no grievances exist against the complainant or its agents or customers, other than the alleged grievance that the complainant does not operate its factory at Battle Creek, Mich., in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the International Association of Machinists or any of its officers or subdivisions; and from threatening, intimidating, or assaulting persons in the employ of your complainant, or those engaged in hauling, installing, using, handling, or operating machinery manufactured by the complainant, and from making misrepresentations or false statements concerning the labor conditions existing in the complainant's factory, for the purpose of interfering with the complainant in securing skilled mechanics to enter or remain in its employ, or in securing orders and contracts from customers for the sale, installation, and use of printing presses; and from using any and all ways, means, and methods of doing any of the aforesaid forbidden acts, and from doing any of the forbidden acts either directly or indirectly, or through by-laws, orders, directions, or suggestions to committees, associations, officers, agents, or otherwise.'

The complaint generally states that the defendants, individually and as officers of the respective labor unions, are attempting to carry on an illegal combination or conspiracy to monopolize the machinists' trade throughout the United States, and to compel employers to operate union shops (where none other than employes of labor unions are engaged), and that by so doing they are interfering with the complainant's business of producing, selling, and installing printing presses. In furtherance of this illegal combination or conspiracy, union men at work for the complainant have been withdrawn from the work of installing or erecting the complainant's products. Picketing has been resorted to, thus preventing the complainant from employing skilled machinists to take the place of men who have gone out on strike in the complainant's employ, and that misrepresentations and intimidations have been resorted to in furtherance of this plan or conspiracy. It is further alleged that, by circulation of circulars and other means of persuasion, the defendants have directly and indirectly, and through officers and their unions, prevented the hauling or carting and erecting of the printing presses manufactured by complainant, and further that the defendants have prevailed upon prospective customers from purchasing the complainant's printing presses, using in their effort threats to such customers, and with labor difficulties such as strikes, boycotts, and misrepresentations, all of which it has alleged has interfered with the complainant's interstate trade or commerce, as a result of which complainant has been damaged.

There was a strike at complainant's plant in August, 1913. At the trial, there was no dispute as to the three individual defendants representing the respective labor unions or associations, as claimed by the complainant.

There have been many cases before the courts involving for decision the rights claimed by the complainant here. The complainant, following the reasoning of Judge Killits in Stephens v. Ohio State Telephone Co. (D.C.) 240 F. 759, decided in February, 1917, in the Northern district of Ohio, urges now that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209), as amended by Congress on October 15, 1914, is but an enunciation of the then existing law, as to the right of injunction against labor unions, as laid down in the many cases. The sections of the Clayton Act having to do with this subject, are as follows:

Chapter 323, Sec. 6: 'The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the anti-trust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of...