Irving v. Joint Dist. Council of New York and Vicinity of United Brotherhood of Carpenters

• Decision Date: 01 July 1910
• Citation: 180 F. 896
• Parties: IRVING et al. v. JOINT DIST. COUNCIL OF NEW YORK AND VICINITY OF UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA AND AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA et al. THE CARPENTER CASE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

180 F. 896

IRVING et al. v. JOINT DIST. COUNCIL OF NEW YORK AND VICINITY OF UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA AND AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA et al.

THE CARPENTER CASE.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

July, 1910

Walter Gordon Merritt, for complainants.

Charles Maitland Beattie and William P. Maloney, for defendants.

WARD Circuit Judge.

This is a motion to continue in the form of a preliminary injunction a restraining order heretofore granted. It involves the question how far labor organizations, and their officers and members, can go to compel an employer of labor to maintain a closed shop; that is, to employ union labor only. Upon this argument the jurisdiction of the court is rested upon the difference of citizenship of the parties only.

The complainants are copartners, citizens of Massachusetts. The defendants are: (1) The Joint District Council of New York and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and the members of said Joint District Council; (2) Edward H. Neal, as secretary of the Joint District Council and individually; (3) David French Joseph Crimmins, L. E. Storey, Henry W. Blumenberg, Henry Erickson, William O'Grady, Frederick Dhuy, Harry Lea Thomas Dalton, Frank Hellereith, George Lynch, August Nagel James B. Smith, James Martin, Julian Wazeter, individually and as business agents of said Joint District Council; (4) Charles H. Bausher, individually and as business agent of the said Joint District Council, and as a member of the General Executive Board of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; (5) Frank Duffy, individually and as secretary of the United Brotherhood; (6) William D. Huber, individually and as president of the United Brotherhood. All of the individuals named are citizens of other states than Massachusetts, and have been served with the subpoena by the United States marshal, except L. E. Storey, James Martin, and Julian Wazeter, citizens of New York, and Frank Duffy and William D. Huber, citizens of Indiana.

A demurrer, a plea, and an answer have been filed to the whole bill on behalf of all the defendants 'other than the members of said Joint District Council, ' so that they are all before the court; Duffy and Huber, by appearing, having waived the objection that the action is brought neither in the district where the plaintiffs nor they themselves reside. Counsel for both parties wish a decision on the merits, and disclaim any disposition of the case on technicalities. Therefore, though the answer to the whole bill overrules the demurrer and the plea, I have considered all objections set up in the demurrer and plea, but shall mention only one I think good.

The defendants object that the Joint District Council, being a voluntary unincorporated association, is not a citizen of any state, and therefore the court has no jurisdiction of it or of its members generally. I think this objection good. Chapman v. Barney, 129 U.S. 677, 9 Sup.Ct. 426, 32 L.Ed. 800; Taylor v. Weir, 171 F. 636, 96 C.C.A. 438. The bill may be dismissed as to the Joint District Council and its members generally, and stand as to the other defendants, in accordance with the practice indicated in Oxley Stave Co. v. Coopers' Union (C.C.) 72 F. 695, affirmed 83 F. 912, 28 C.C.A. 99. There are intimations that service upon some of the members of such associations may be good as against the association and the other members in United States v. Coal Dealers Ass'n (C.C.) 85 F. 252, American Steel & Wire Co. v. Wire Drawers' Unions 1 and 3 (C.C.) 90 F. 598, and Evenson v. Spaulding, 150 F. 517, 82 C.C.A. 263, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 904. If these cases mean more than that members of the associations not served may be held guilty of contempt if they knowingly assist in the violation of an injunction which has been granted, I am not disposed to follow them.

The particular grievance alleged in the bill may now be considered. The complainants are engaged in the manufacture of fine interior woodwork at East Cambridge, Mass., which they erect in place anywhere throughout the United States. They keep an open shop, employing union and nonunion labor without discrimination. For this reason they are regarded as enemies by the United Brotherhood. It has, and has long had, in the language of the defendants, a trade dispute with the complainants. The United Brotherhood is a voluntary unincorporated association having a membership of carpenters and joiners throughout the United States aggregating 185,000. These members are divided into local unions, which are also voluntary unincorporated associations and are represented by district councils, composed of delegates from the local unions constituting the district. The members of the local unions are by virtue of that membership also members of the United Brotherhood and entitled to vote for delegates to its general conventions and for its general officers. The Joint District Council of New York and Vicinity consists of some 70 local unions of the United Brotherhood and of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of America. There can be no question that these bodies constitute and are designed to constitute a combination of great power. The bill alleges that this power is being unlawfully used against the complainants, in that on April 21, 1910, they having begun work under a contract for the woodwork of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in this city, the defendant French, business agent of the Joint District Council of New York, ordered their men to quit work because this product was 'unfair'-- that is, the product of an open shop-- and the men did quit work. April 22d the complainants' foreman, having called upon the defendant Crimmins, shop delegate of the Joint Council, was informed by him that the men could not go back until the complainants kept a union shop in Massachusetts. April 23d, in another interview with the defendant French, the complainants' foreman was told that if he put nonunion work on the work at the cathedral, he (French) would pull out all the other trades working there. I have no doubt that this would have been done, nor is it denied in the affidavit submitted by the defendants. Thereupon the complainants obtained an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued, and a restraining order in the meantime, which was granted.

For the purpose of showing the existence of the combination alleged in the bill, the...