La France Elec. Constr. & Supply Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local No. 8, No. 17732.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: ALLEN
• Citation: 108 Ohio St. 61,140 N.E. 899
• Parties: LA FRANCE ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION & SUPPLY CO. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 8, et al.
• Docket Number: No. 17732.
• Decision Date: 29 May 1923

108 Ohio St. 61
140 N.E. 899

LA FRANCE ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION & SUPPLY CO.
v.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 8, et al.

No. 17732.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

May 29, 1923.

Error to Court of Appeals, Lucas County.

Suit by the La France Electrical Construction & Supply Company against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 8, and others, for an injunction. A judgment refusing an injunction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.-[By Editorial Staff.]

This case was brought as an injunction suit in the court of common pleas of Lucas county. Plaintiff prayed for an injunction against certain alleged unlawful acts of the defendants, done in pursuance of an alleged conspiracy to interfere with and destroy plaintiff's business, in order to compel plaintiff against its will to operate its business as a closed union shop. The court of common pleas allowed a temporary injunction against acts of violence and intimidation, and later granted a second temporary injunction against picketing and inducing plaintiff's employees to leave their employment. The second temporary injunction was later vacated by the court of common pleas, so as to permit peaceful picketing and peaceful persuasion of employees to leave their work. Plaintiff appealed from the order vacating parts of the second temporary injunction to the Court of Appeals of Lucas county, which decided the appeal adversely to the plaintiff.

The cause then came on for hearing before the court of common pleas upon its merits, and a decree was entered therein separately stating the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the injunction was granted. The injunction allowed by the court of common pleas restrained the defendants from uttering threats or doing acts of violence and intimidation, and specifically restrained certain four of the defendants from going to the plaintiff's shop, or to any place in which plaintiff's employés might be engaged in work, or to the vicinity thereof, for the purpose of speaking to, interviewing, persuading, following, or in any manner communicating with, any person in the plaintiff's employ. The findings of fact made by the trial court upon final hearing were as follows:

‘Findings of Fact.

‘The plaintiff is an Ohio corporation, having its principal place of business in the city of Toledo, Lucas county, Ohio. The defendant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 8, is a voluntary unincorporated association of electrical workers, of which the defendant Chris McCullough is president, and the defendant Oliver Myers is business agent; the defendants Ross Kettle and Jim Mahr (whose true name appears by the evidence to be James Maher) are members of said local union. The defendant Plasterers' Local Union No. 7 is a voluntary unincorporated association of plasterers, of which the defendant Charles G. Thornton is business agent, and the defendant Lathers' Union, Local No. 24, is a voluntary unincorporated association of lathers, of which August Meyerhofer is business agent. The plaintiff was, at the times of the filing of the petition and answer, engaged in electrical construction work upon Inverness Club, on Dorr street, in Lucas county, Ohio.

‘Plaintiff's business is electrical construction work, and it is engaged in that business in and about the city of Toledo, Lucas county, Ohio, and it has on hand about 25 contracts for electrical construction. Among the contracts on hand at the time of the bringing of this action was one for doing the electrical work upon Inverness Club, which is located upon Dorr street, in Lucas county, Ohio, and said contract for work upon Inverness Club, and other contracts of the plaintiff, were and are made upon a lump sum basis for the work to be done, and in making the same the plaintiff contemplated and expected to go ahead and complete its work without delay, and the figures given to the Inverness Club and other persons contracting with the plaintiff for its services were based upon a continuous and uninterrupted performance of the work.

‘The defendant Richard Fisher is a member and financial secretary of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 8, and A. Doeller, Henry E. McGinnis, James Maher (sued herein as Jim Mahr), Ross Kettle, and Edwin Gorrell are members of the executive committee of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 8, and as such committee they, acting with the business agent of the Local, had charge of all matters of interest to the Local between meeting dates, including industrial controversies. Thomas Crahan is a member of said Local, and Raymond Cleary is a representative of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who came to Toledo to assist Local No. 8 in making agreements with electrical contractors, after notice from the Local, given in March, 1920, that industrial difficulties were pending in the city of Toledo. Crahan, Doeller, McGinnis, Maher, Cleary, Myers, and McCullough acted as a committee of the Local which had some negotiations prior to May 1, 1920, for an agreement with certain electrical contractors of the city of Toledo, among them the plaintiff, relative to working conditions in said city for the period from May 1, 1920 to May 1, 1921.

‘During the period from May 1, 1919, to and including April 30, 1920, there was in effect in the city of Toledo, Ohio, an agreement between Local No. 8 and certain electrical contractors of the city of Toledo, of which the plaintiff corporation was one, governing wages, overtime pay, working conditions, and providing that so long as the Local No. 8 could furnish union men, or so-called ‘permit men,’ no nonunion men should be hired by said contractors, and that, in the event any such nonunion men were hired at any time, Local No. 8 should have to ‘organize’ said men; that is, induce them to become members or permit men of said Local. During the month of April, 1920, a number of conferences were had between a group of electrical contractors of this city, of which plaintiff was one, and a committee of Local No. 8, with members as above stated, relative to the situation which would arise following the expiration, on April 30, 1920, of the agreement then in effect. Some negotiations were had and certain suggestions made on both sides, but no agreement was reached, and there has been no agreement of any sort in effect between the parties hereto since April 30, 1920.

‘Some time before May 1, 1920, the plaintiff determined upon a policy of employment by which it should conduct an open shop, employing union and nonunion men without discrimination, and without being bound by any agreement with the union, and on Thursday, April 29, 1920, the plaintiff paid off all of its workmen and terminated its existing contracts of employment with them.

‘Upon plaintiff's former employés and other applicants for work reporting to it on Monday, May 3d, there was handed to each of them to be signed a written agreement in the following form:

“Agreement of Employment.

“Toledo, Ohio, _____, 1920.

“It is hereby agreed between _____, as employer, and the undersigned, as employee, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties hereunder, that said employee, from and after the date hereof, is employed by said employer upon the following terms and conditions.

“1. As a _____ in the employ of the employer at a minimum wage of ___ cents per hour, eight hours to constitute a day's work, and forty-four hours to constitute a week's work, with time and a half for overtime over said number of hours per day between the hours of 6 a. m. and 6 p. m., and with double time for all work done between the hours of 6 p. m. and 6 a. m., on Sunday, and on the following named holidays, to wit, New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. Said minimum of ___ cents per hour may be increased, any suit increase leaving the remaining provisions of this agreement unaffected.

“2. The employment of said employee under this agreement shall continue until either the employee or the employer shall have given the other two days' written notice of his intention to terminate it, except in the case of misbehavior or incompetency of the employee which shall be ground for an immediate termination of the employment by the employer. In case of any termination of employment or cessation of work by the employee for any reason, said employee agrees that he will not then or thereafter, in an manner, at any place, annoy, molest, or interfere with the business, customers, or employees, or prospective customers or employees, of said employer, or with the members of the families of any such customers, employees, or prospective customers or employees, and that he will not attempt to persuade or coerce others in refusing to work for or deal with said employer.

“3. The employer shall, and hereby agrees to, maintain an open shop, employing union or nonunion employees without discrimination, during the continuance of said employee's employment under this agreement, and the undersigned employee shall, and hereby agrees that he will, take no action at any time designed or tending in any way to unionize the employer's employees, or to make its shop a closed union shop, or any of its jobs closed union jobs.

“4. The rules and regulations of the employer, not in conflict herewith, as posted upon its bulletin board from time to time, shall become and are hereby made a part of this agreement.

By ________.

“________,

“Employee.'

‘Some employees signed these agreements at that time; but, while some were not signed, the defendant Myers came upon the scene and ordered all members of the defendant Local No. 8 to refrain from signing said agreements, whereupon all of said members of Local No. 8 did refuse to sign the same and to accept employment with the plaintiff under the conditions laid down by it.

‘On May 3, 1920, and...