Engel v. Walsh

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: VICKERS
• Citation: Engel v. Walsh, 258 Ill. 98, 101 N. E. 222 (Ill. 1913)
• Decision Date: 04 April 1913
• Parties: ENGEL v. WALSH et al.

258 Ill. 98

101 N.E. 222

ENGEL

v.WALSH et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 20, 1913.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1913.

Error to Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Thomas G. Windes, Judge.

Bill by Charles F. Engel against the Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers' Labor Union No. 73, International Alliance, Thomas Redding, president, Thomas Walsh, business agent, and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appealed to the Appellate Court, and, the decree having been there affirmed (170 Ill. App. 3), he brings error. Affirmed.

Pope, Hoig, Fuller & Nichols, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Cruice & Langille, of Chicago (Daniel L. Cruice, A. S. Langille, and O. J. C. Wray, all of Chicago, of counsel), for defendants in error.

VICKERS, J.

Charles F. Engel filed a bill in the circuit court of Cook county against the Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers' Labor Union No. 73, International Alliance (hereinafter referred to as the union), and Thomas Redding, president, Thomas Walsh, business agent, and other persons, officers and members of committees and boards of the union, for an injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing, or attempting to enforce, a fine which had been imposed upon the complainant by said union for an alleged violation of the rules of the union for the alleged misuse of the union label on nonunion furnace stacks. Complainant having filed with his bill an affidavit that his rights would be unduly prejudiced, if the injunction prayed for be not issued immediately, obtained a temporary injunction without notice. Some of the defendants appeared and filed a demurrer to the bill, both general and special. The union and Charles Shank, who is made a defendant and described as ‘business agent’ of the union, filed an answer and a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction; but the cause was set down for hearing upon the demurrer of the other defendants, and the cause was finally disposed of on demurrer and without reference to the answer. Upon the hearing of the demurrer, the same was sustained, and the temporary injunction dissolved; and, complainant electing to abide by his bill, it was ordered that the same be dismissed for want of equity. The complainant below prosecuted an appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District, and that court has affirmed the decree below. Upon a petition filed for that purpose in this court, a certiorari has been sued out to bring the record into further review by this court. The errors assigned question the ruling of the court in sustaining the demurrer, dissolving the injunction, and dismissing the bill.

Plaintiff in error's case, as stated in the bill, is as follows: He alleges that in 1910, under a contract with the Hess Warming & Ventilating Company, a corporation, he installed at Nos. 4336 and 4338 Mozart street, in the city of Chicago, four furnace stacks made of tin pipe, two in each house, and later installed for the same parties two other similar furnace stacks at No. 4340, on said street, and that the Hess Warming & Ventilating Company paid him for his serv ices $26. The bill alleges that the stacks were manufactured and furnished to plaintiff in error by the Chicago Furnace Supply Company under an order from the Hess Warming & Ventilating Company. It is alleged that the Chicago Furnace Supply Company was then, and still is, operating a union shop, and that the Hess Warming & Ventilating Company was at that time, and still is, operating an open shop, the meaning of which is that the former company employs only union labor, while the latter employs workmen without regard to the union. The bill alleges that the defendant in error, the union, issued a pamphlet containing a list of union shops, and that the Chicago Furnace Supply Company was on said list as a union shop. The pamphlet is made an exhibit and filed with the bill. It is charged that on the 26th of March, 1910, under the direction of the business agent (Shank) of the union, a strike was called against the buildings in which plaintiff in error had installed the furnace stacks, and that the lathers, who were then engaged in working on said houses, ceased working; that, on the 31st of March following, plaintiff in errorwas invited to appear before the executive board of the union to answer a charge brought against him, in which he was charged with a misuse of labels on nonunion furnace stacks. The bill shows that plaintiff in error appeared in obedience to the notice, and a partial hearing was had upon said charge; that, on the hearing, plaintiff in error contended that the furnace stacks he had erected were manufactured by a union shop, and that he was not guilty of the charges brought against him; that, at the time of this hearing, the strike against the houses in question was called off, and the lathers resumed their work; that the further hearing of the charges against plaintiff in error was postponed until the 8th day of April, 1910, at which time plaintiff in error again appeared, and again insisted that the Chicago Furnace Supply Company was accredited as a union shop, but the executive board found against plaintiff in error, and found that the said Furnace Supply Company was not a union shop, and that plaintiff in error was guilty of a misuse of union labels as charged, and assessed a fine against him of $100. Plaintiff in error further alleges that no labels of any kind were, in fact, used upon said furnace stacks. The bill alleges that the said Chicago Furnace Supply Company was at the time, and still is, a union shop.

It is alleged that the action of the executive board in assessing a fine against plaintiff in error had been ratified and confirmed by the union, and that said union had ordered that no more union labels be issued to plaintiff in error until said fine was paid, and that a strike would be called upon any job upon which plaintiff in error was employed, unless the fine was paid. The bill alleges that defendant in error Walsh stated to plaintiff in error, after the hearing, that the fine in question was imposed because plaintiff in error had been doing work for the Hess Warming & Ventilating Company, a nonunion shop. The bill alleges that plaintiff in error tendered to the union his membership dues, which the union has refused to receive, and that it also refuses to recognize plaintiff in error as a member until he has paid the fine of $100. It is charged, in general terms, that the whole proceeding in connection with the trial, and the imposing of the fine, was unjust and wrong, and that the same were intended as a means of preventing plaintiff in error from working for any open shop, and particularly from being employed by the Hess Warming & Ventilating Company. It is alleged that these acts are contrary to equity and good...