Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering

• Decision Date: 25 May 1918
• Docket Number: 120.
• Citation: 252 F. 722
• Parties: DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. v. DEERING et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

252 F. 722

DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. v. DEERING et al.

No. 120.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 25, 1918

Complainant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Michigan. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing printing presses at its factory in Battle Creek, Mich. It has always maintained the open shop policy both in connection with its factory in Battle Creek and in supervising elsewhere the erection of its presses. When it is fully occupied, it operates ten hours a day, although in the winter it usually runs eight hours a day. Its presses are sold throughout the United States, and even in foreign countries. Special emphasis is placed by it on its manufacture of presses for metropolitan newspapers, which vary in weight from 10,000 pounds to 100,000 pounds, and which require from one to four railroad cars to transport them, and many drayloads to cart them to and from the freight yards. It is said that these presses are of a peculiar manufacture and are made under special patents with the result that the ordinary mechanic or pressman is not competent to erect or operate them, except under supervision and instruction of some one usually employed by the complainant, who is familiar with their structure and operation.

The defendants are officers and members of the International Association of Machinists. This association is divided into 'districts' of which District Council, No. 15, in New York City, is one. Two of the defendants, Emil J. Deering and William Bramley, are business agents of District Council, No 15. Michael T. Neyland is business agent of what is known as Local Lodge, No. 328, of the International Association of Machinists, existing and carrying on business solely within the city and state of New York. No jurisdiction was obtained over these unincorporated associations, as they were not served in the manner required by the statute. Deering Bramley, and Neyland are members of the International Association of Machinists.

It is alleged that the International Association of Machinists is an unincorporated association of journeymen machinists, with a membership of over 60,000, and has affiliated therewith local unions and lodges in different states and territories of the United States, which are also unincorporated associations, and that each member of any local lodge is by virtue thereof a member of the International Association District No. 15 of said International Association is one of the association's subdivisions and has its principal office in New York City. It is alleged that the Riggers' Protective Union is an unincorporated association of workingmen engaged in handling, hauling, and erecting machinery, etc., and has jurisdiction over all union men in New York City engaged in that business. It is alleged by complainant, although denied by defendants in their answer, that nearly all of the skilled machinists in New York City are members of the International Association of Machinists, and that nearly all of the riggers in New York City are members of the Riggers' Protective Union, and that the said union machinists and riggers are affiliated with another unincorporated association known as the Building Trades Council of New York City, and that said Building Trades Council is composed of the various unions in New York City whose members are engaged in the building business, and includes in its membership the unions of some 30 different trades, with an aggregate membership of from 75,000 to 100,000 members, and that, by virtue of the agreements and understanding existing between each of said unions, no member thereof is allowed to work on or in connection with any building where any nonunion man is employed, and said Building Trades Council is authorized to call strikes of all trades employed on or in connection with any building in the event that any nonunion man is employed in any of said trades, and that by reason of said rules and regulations and the affiliation of said 30 unions through the Building Trades Council it is practically impossible to erect any building in the borough of Manhattan where any nonunion man is employed in any of said trades.

The complainant states that it is informed and believes that the entire machinery of the Building Trades Council will be put into operation and effect against it, in order to prevent it from exhibiting or displaying its presses at the exposition conducted by the National Exposition Company, Incorporated, as hereinafter set forth, unless a restraining order be issued as prayed. The complainant states on information and belief that for many years past the International Association of Machinists and the local branches thereof, and the members and officers of said association and its branches, have been engaged in a combination and conspiracy to monopolize the machinists' trade throughout the United States, and to prevent the employment of any machinist who is not a member of said International Association, and that they have adopted various means and devices to prevent any employer procuring or retaining the necessary skilled organization for the production or installation of printing presses or the necessary customers for the sale thereof, unless said employers operate a closed or union shop and refuse employment to any machinist who is not a member of said International Association of Machinists, and that said conspirators have been so far successful in carrying out their said combination; that practically all manufacturers of printing presses of the kind and character manufactured by the complainant, with the exception of the complainant, have been compelled to comply with the demands of said conspirators, and to refuse employment to any person who is not a member of said International Association, and that for a number of years past the said conspirators have further combined and conspired together to attain their said monopolistic and unlawful ends by restraining, injuring, and destroying the complainant's interstate trade, business, and good will, and interfering with the sale, carting, and installation of the complainant's printing presses in New York state and the different states of the United States, for the purpose of destroying its interstate trade, contrary to the statutes of the United States and the state of New York in such cases made and provided, and contrary to the common law, because the complainant operates an open shop, and that all of the acts and doings of the said conspirators as described were done in furtherance of said conspiracy, and that if said conspirators are successful in destroying the complainant's business, because it is unwilling to become a member of said combination, such monopoly will have become complete, and no person will be able to secure employment in connection with the manufacture of printing presses of the kind manufactured by the complainant, except with the consent of the said International Association of Machinists.

It is alleged that in the month of August, 1913, a strike was called in complainant's factory by the defendants, or those acting in conjunction with them, in furtherance of said conspiracy, and 12 or 14 men quit work under orders of the union, without presenting any grievances or demands, or giving any notice, and that all of said men who quit work were members of said International Association of Machinists, and that immediately after said strike took place, and with like purpose and intent, said confederates placed pickets around said factory, to prevent the complainant from securing skilled machinists to take the place of those who had gone out on strike, and complainant is informed and believes that they have ever since persistently endeavored to induce other skilled machinists working for it at Battle Creek, or in connection with the installation of its presses in different parts of the country, to quit work, and have employed falsehoods, misrepresentations, threats, intimidation, and personal violence to induce employes of complainant to quit work, and to prevent other mechanics entering the employment of complainant, and has thereby been caused great and irreparable injury. It is also alleged on information and belief that the said conspirators have published and widely distributed letters and circulars among, and have made oral communications to, unions and teamsters, machinists, and pressmen, and their officers and members, and also to other kinds of mechanics or journeymen who do, or might have occasion to do, the work of hauling, handling, erecting, or operating printing presses, to the effect that complainant is unfair, and that no mechanics or craftsmen of any class could or should haul, handle, install, or operate printing presses produced by complainant, and that all machinists are forbidden to handle, erect, or operate such presses, and that the object and effect of said circulars has been to incite union officers in all parts of the United States to induce, prevent, and forbid all members not to haul, handle, erect, or operate such presses, and to thereby cause loss and damage to any person or corporation purchasing complainant's presses, and to deter said persons and corporations from doing business with complainant for fear of labor difficulties, and the complainant has been thereby caused irreparable loss and damage.

It is also alleged on information and belief that said conspirators endeavored to prevent customers and those who might become customers of complainant from placing contracts with or purchasing printing presses from complainant, and they have threatened said customers with labor difficulties, which would injure their said business, if they patronized complainant, and they have made misrepresentations to complain...