F. R. Patch Mfg. Co. v. Prot. Lodge, No. 215, Int'l Ass'n of Machinists

• Decision Date: 22 February 1905
• Citation: 60 A. 74,77 Vt. 294
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: F. R. PATCH MFG. CO. v. PROTECTION LODGE, NO. 215, INTERNATIONAL ASS'N OF MACHINISTS.

60 A. 74

77 Vt. 294

F. R. PATCH MFG. CO.

v. PROTECTION LODGE, NO. 215, INTERNATIONAL ASS'N OF MACHINISTS.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Rutland.

Feb. 22, 1905.

Exceptions from Rutland County Court; Haselton, Judge.

Action by the F. R. Patch Manufacturing Company against Protection Lodge, No. 215, International Association of Machinists. To a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant excepts. Affirmed.

Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, START, WATSON, and STAFFORD, JJ.

Orion M. Barber and Marvelle C. Webber, for plaintiff. Peter F. McManus, Thomas H. Browne, and James K. Batchelder, for defendant

TYLER, J. This is an action on the case, brought by the plaintiff, a corporation, against the defendant, a partnership and unincorporated association consisting of more than five members, and having a president, secretary, clerk, and treasurer, to recover damages for the defendant's alleged unlawful acts of interference with the plaintiff in the prosecution of its business. It appeared that the plaintiff, prior to the acts complained of, was a manufacturing corporation duly organized under the laws of this state, located and doing business in the city of Rutland; that its business was the manufacture of machinery for mills and stonework of all kinds, also of various other kinds of machinery and engines, and it carried supplies for steam fitters and mills in this and other countries; that it has erected an expensive and valuable plant with adequate power, and employed about 100 skilled machinists, also molders and other workmen; that it had a large amount of capital invested in its business, which was carried on at a profit; and that at the time of the alleged wrongful acts of the defendant it had contracts on hand with customers to furnish them its goods at a profit when manufactured. The defendant association was composed of machinists, many of whom were employed in the mills and shops of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff claimed that the defendant conspired with its members and with other labor organizations in Rutland and vicinity to force the plaintiff to adopt a schedule of hours of labor by which nine hours should constitute a day's work, and to increase the wages of its workmen, so that the plaintiff could not do business at a profit, nor, except at a loss, complete its contracts; that the plaintiff refused to comply with this demand, and that thereupon, on May 20, 1902, the machinists, at the order and direction of the defendant, quit their work, and conspired and confederated together, and with divers other persons unknown to the plaintiff, to oppress the plaintiff and force it to accede to their illegal demands, and by threats, intimidations, bribery, and violence sought to intimidate and drive away the other workmen of the plaintiff, and detailed pickets, spies, and watchmen to stand guard about and near the plaintiff's works, and prevent other workmen taking employment therein; that they intercepted and prevented, by threats, bribes, and violence, other men whom the plaintiff had employed, and who were on their way to Rutland, from engaging in the plaintiff's service, and that. In carrying out their conspiracy, by threats and intimidations they caused a large number of workmen whom the plaintiff had employed, and who had entered upon its service, to quit its service; that the defendant and its co-conspirators visited the keepers of boarding houses and merchants, and by threats to boycott and injure their business induced and coerced them to refuse to board and entertain and to sell goods and necessaries to such workmen; that they made attacks upon boarding houses where the workmen were boarded, and attacked, assaulted, and annoyed them on the streets and at their boarding houses, and thereby drove away from the plaintiff's employment large numbers of such workmen, all which conduct injured the plaintiff in its business. The defendant denied the conspiracy alleged, and claimed that whatever was done by it and the other associations was, through a lawful combination among thorn, to effect by lawful means the lawful purpose of forcing the plaintiff to lessen the hours of labor and increase the wages of workmen.

No question was made in the court below in respect to the sufficiency of the declaration; therefore it cannot be considered here. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to establish all the material allegations in the declaration, most of which was received under the defendant's exception. The defendant relies upon seven exceptions to the admission of evidence: (1) The testimony of Patch about the visit of a committee, and what they said to him; the admission of plaintiff's Exhibits 1 and 2, and all that Patch testified to upon the subjects to which they related, and especially to all that the committee said to him upon that occasion. This exception was taken upon the ground that it was not shown that the committee was a committee of the defendant. (2) To the testimony in respect to the threats and acts of McDonald. (3) About the distribution and posting of Exhibits 4 and 5, called "stickers." (4) The testimony of Alexander Sanchegrin, on the ground that there was no proof that Page was a member of defendant lodge, nor that E. A. U. Hall was used exclusively by that lodge. (5) As to all testimony in respect to the acts of Pennington and others relating to a boycott. (6) To the testimony relating to the acts of Young and Hines. (7) To all testimony respecting the conduct of Martin for the same reason. All these exceptions were upon the ground that, if the various acts testified to were in fact committed, the plaintiff had failed to show that the defendant directed or sanctioned them, or was in any way responsible for them; that these acts, if committed, were upon the motion alone of the plaintiff's striking employés for the purpose of shortening time and increasing wages, and that these acts did not emanate from the defendant lodge nor any of the other lodges mentioned, and were not evidence of the conspiracy alleged.

1. The plaintiff's evidence tended to show that, being engaged in business as alleged on May 11, 1902, it received a written communication which reads (plaintiff's Exhibit 2):

"International Association of Machinists. Rutland, Vt., May 11, 1902. To the Patch Manufacturing Co.—Gentlemen: Representing the machinists employed in your shop, we respectfully request that you establish the following conditions in the Patch Manufacturing works: 1. Fifty-four hours to constitute a week's work. Any time over this to be considered overtime and to be paid for at the rate of time and one-half. 2. That the company recognize the union and union principles. In explanation we would say that we must be governed by the Grand Lodge I. A. M., and to hold our charter and remain union men we are forced to ask recognition. We further call your attention to the fact that only union work goes in many places and we have to endorse your product as fair. If we do so longer, we feel that we must receive the benefits. If the capacity of shops is insufficient we suggest that our union men will always be glad to help out any situation by working evenings or to help out the same as at present. We mean by recognition of the union the meeting of shop committee to settle any differences on the same plan as moulders. Will be pleased to receive your reply on or before Wednesday night, May 14, addressed to Protection Lodge No. 215, Rutland, Vt. [Seal of Protection Lodge.]"

The plaintiff's evidence also tended to show that on May 20th a large number of the plaintiff's machinists and other workmen struck and left its employment, and that a few hours later on that day P. R. Patch, who was the plaintiff's president and general manager, found upon his desk a written communication stating that the committee of Protection Lodge, No. 215, I. A. of M., would meet at the E. A. U. Hall at 3 p. m. that day, and that any communication would be respectfully considered; that this paper had upon it an impress of the seal of the defendant lodge, and had appended the names of ten men, five of them purporting to be those of J. A. Keenan, N. J. Howley, J. E. Capeless, J. P. Hinchey, and M. H. McLaughlin, five of the machinists who had struck, and who were afterwards shown to have been at that time members of the defendant lodge; that these five men afterwards called upon Mr. Patch for an answer, but made no reference to either of said papers, and the defendant's testimony tended to show that these five men never signed, authorized, or knew of the last-named paper.

The plaintiff's evidence tended to show that the defendant and some or all of its members confederated together and with other lodges of other classes of workmen and the members thereof, and in like manner drove away from the plaintiff's service workmen of the plaintiff who did not strike and leave the plaintiff's service on May 20th, and other workmen whom the plaintiff had since that time employed. Among the specific acts that the plaintiff's evidence tended to show were committed by the alleged conspirators were that they detailed pickets and special watchmen to watch the railroad station for the arrival of men, to patrol the streets of Rutland, to stand guard about the plaintiff's works to prevent other workmen from taking employment therein; that they sent out spies and watchmen upon the roads and railroads leading to Rutland, and intercepted men who were on their way to enter the plaintiff's service, and by threats, bribes, and promises in many cases prevented such men from entering the plaintiff's service; and that the defendant also combined and confederated with other persons unknown to the plaintiff to do and in doing the acts alleged; that, after the strike was on, the defendant appointed Walter Newton and John E. Capeless, two of its members, to conduct the strike, and that they employed one Martin to assist them. The testimony of the defendant's...