Huttig Sash & Door Co. v. Fuelle

• Decision Date: 01 March 1906
• Citation: 143 F. 363
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
• Parties: HUTTIG SASH & DOOR CO. v. FUELLE et al.

143 F. 363

HUTTIG SASH & DOOR CO. v. FUELLE et al.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

March 1, 1906

In a proceeding for contempt against defendants for violation of an injunction previously granted in the cause and against others for aiding, abetting, and assisting them in such violation, the following facts were shown: Complainant was engaged in the manufacture of doors, sash, and other woodwork for the furnishing of houses, and defendants were members of a labor union of carpenters and joiners and were enjoined from conducting a boycott against complainant, directly or indirectly, by causing notice to be given to contractors or others not to purchase its products under threats to cause their workmen to leave their service or from attempting to induce such workmen to quit because of such purchases. For 15 months the injunction was obeyed and then the respondents those not parties to the suit being members or officers of the same labor organization, with knowledge of the injunction, commenced sending out to owners, architects, and contractors monthly booklets containing a list of the so-called "fair" mills in which complainant's name did not appear, and a letter requesting that all contracts should contain a clause that only union-made furnishings should be used, and a statement that, unless such materials were used, union men would refuse to handle them. Respondents also, by threatening to call a strike of their workmen, induced certain contractors to sign a contract to buy only from mills listed as "fair" for a term of two years. No statement was made to such persons at the time that complainant was excepted from the prohibition, nor was it mentioned in the booklets. Held, that both the obtaining of the contracts and the circulating of the booklets were plain violations of the spirit, if not the letter, of the injunction, and subjected respondents to punishment for contempt; those who were parties to the suit, for violation of the injunction, and the others, for knowingly aiding and assisting in such violation.

The complainant, a corporation engaged in manufacturing woodwork sashes, doors, blinds, and other materials used for interior furnishings of houses, instituted this action to restrain the defendants, comprising the most active members of the Carpenters' District Council of St. Louis Mo., and as such the business agents and representatives of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, a voluntary association, the membership of which includes several thousand artisans and skilled laborers engaged in the occupation of wood workers, carpenters, cabinet makers, and joiners, many of them engaged in the same kind of labor as that which complainant is required to employ in its manufacturing establishment. It is charged that complainant has a large number of employes in its mill who are well satisfied with their employment, some of whom are members of the associations or unions represented by the district council of which the defendants are officers, while many of them are not such members. That the defendants, as the officers and representatives of the associations which they represent, which for convenience may be called 'unions,' in order to create a monopoly in their trades and occupations, assume to and do exercise the authority of compelling individual members of those unions to refuse to work with any persons in their respective callings not members of their union; and also prevent any of its members from working for any contractor, builder, or any other person who purchases from any person, firm, or corporation supplies or materials, like those produced and sold by complainant, who employes in his establishment persons not members of a union; and not only do they refuse to permit the members of their union to work on such contracts, but, being affiliated with other unions whose members are engaged in various other lines of industry connected with the building trade, they also prevent others from working on any contract if materials are used which were purchased from a mill or manufacturer who employs men not affiliated with any of the unions, and which are called 'unfair' establishments. That by reason of the fact that complainant employs in its factory many persons not members of any of those unions, the defendants conspired and confederated with other members of the council and associations to compel complainant to employ only members of the association, or union men, or require such of its employes as are not members thereof to become such members and subject to the rules of defendants' association as to compensation, hours of work, and other rules prescribed by them. That, upon complainant's refusal to accede to these demands, it was advised by defendants that, if it failed to comply, they would boycott it and prohibit all their members to handle any material produced by it or perform services for any contractor or builder who might buy materials or supplies of any kind from complainant, and further threatened that owing to their affiliation with similar unions engaged in other lines connected with the building trade, they would cause the members of such other unions to refuse to accept or continue any employment with any person who might purchase materials from complainant. That, in pursuance of said conspiracy, defendants have sent circular letters to contractors and builders who are customers of complainant advising them that complainant was unfair to organized labor, and for this reason its products had been boycotted. That, in addition to these circulars, the defendants had called and sent its agents in person to contractors and builders and advised them of complainant's boycott, and that it was their intention to require all members of their unions or other unions with which they affiliated, to decline to accept or continue employment with any persons who might buy material from complainant. That in many instances contractors, who had large numbers of union men in their employ, and had bought materials from complainant, were threatened with strikes by defendants, whereupon such contractors and builders refused to buy any more material from complainants, to its great loss and injury; while in other instances, owing to such threats, contractors had to enter into contracts with defendants not to purchase any material from complainant. That the defendants are insolvent, and any judgments at law recovered against them for damages sustained by their unlawful action could not be collected. They therefore pray for an injunction against the defendants.

On April 28, 1904, the late Circuit Judge Thayer issued an order requiring the defendants to appear on May 14, 1904, to show cause why an injunction pendente lite, such as was prayed for in the bill, should not be granted; but in the meantime a temporary restraining order was issued, enjoining and restraining the defendants from boycotting the complainant and from giving notice, verbally or written, either in person or through the agency of others, to any person, firm, or corporation to decline to purchase materials of any sort from complainant, under threats that if such purchases are made they will cause persons in the employ of persons thus notified to withdraw from their service; and they were likewise enjoined and restrained from attempting to induce any person or persons whomsoever to decline employment or cease employment under any person, firm, or corporation because such person, firm, or corporation may have purchased or purposed to purchase materials from the complainant, and from making such attempt through the agency of others; that they be likewise enjoined and restrained from attempting to put any persons, firms, or corporations in fear of sustaining loss by threatening to induce persons in their service to quit their employment if they continue to make purchases from the complainant. They were also restrained from stationing persons at or near the place of business of the complainant, for the purpose of following said company's wagons which are engaged in making deliveries of materials, for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of said company's customers and thereafter threatening their servants and employes and inducing them to quit their employment, unless they withdrew their patronage or ceased to do business with the complainant. Upon the return day the defendants filed a return to the order to show cause and an answer to the bill, denying all the material allegations of the bill, and moved for a dissolution of the restraining order. On September 13, 1905, before a final determination of the cause, complainant filed a motion for a rule upon the defendants James A. Shine and Alvin Hohenstein, and also upon Thomas J. Crowe, George J. Bohnen, and Frederick W. Mellville, who were not defendants in the cause at that time, but who were made defendants on that day by the filing of a supplemental bill, to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt in violating the temporary restraining order theretofore granted.

In this petition, the complainant, after setting out the granting of the restraining order, as hereinbefore stated, and that the same had been duly served upon the defendants, charged that James A. Shine and Alvin Hohenstein, two of the defendants duly served with the injunction, had violated said temporary restraining order, and that the other persons hereinbefore named, with full knowledge and notice of the issuance of said temporary restraining order and of the terms thereof, had aided, abetted, and assisted said defendants in so violating the same. That the violation of said restraining order consisted of the fact: First, that said parties had issued and circulated, and caused and procured to...