Jetton-dekle Lumber Co. v. Mather

• Decision Date: 26 February 1907
• Parties: JETTON-DEKLE LUMBER CO. v. MATHER et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

43 So. 590

53 Fla. 969

JETTON-DEKLE LUMBER CO. v. MATHER et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

February 26, 1907

Rehearing Denied April 2, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; Joseph B. Wall Judge.

Bill by the Jetton-Dakle Lumber Company against George Mather and others. From an order modifying the injunction, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

A modification of a blanket injunction against striking members of a labor union, that permits the union peaceably to enforce its rules against its members to the extent of expulsion of such as work for those employing nonunion labor, will not be disturbed on appeal.

To constitute a conspiracy, either the act conspired or the manner of its doing must be unlawful.

Where a statute creating a crime is of doubtful interpretation, it should be left to the criminal court primarily for construction, before being applied by the chancery courts as the basis for injunction.

A criminal statute, denouncing a wrongful conspiracy to prevent persons from obtaining work or to procure their discharge will not be applied to the case of union laborers who strike in order to secure all the labor for themselves.

The common law and early statutes of England as to conspiracies among laborers are not so consonant with the spirit of our government as to control us in the grant or the refusal to grant injunctions against laborers who refuse to work.

COUNSEL John P. Wall and Macfarlane & Glen, for appellant.

E. R Gunby, for appellees.

OPINION

COCKRELL J.

A bill of complaint was filed in the circuit court for Hillsborough county by the Jetton-Dekle Lumber Company, a corporation, for an injunction against various officers and members of the Building Trades Council, a voluntary organization of representatives of organized labor, Carpenters' Union No 696 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, the Bricklayers', Masons', and Plasterers' Union No. 3, Painters' Union No. 88, Sheet Metal Workers' Union No. 88, Electricians' Union No. 108, Plumbers' Union No. 111, and the Central Trades Labor Assembly.

The bill alleges in substance that the complainant is a general contractor and large employer of labor; that in performance of building contracts it had been accustomed to sublet the painting contracts; that it had on hand various contracts in which the painting has been so sublet, and that it was incumbent upon it to complete the contracts under heavy penalties; that a strike of the Painters' Union against the painting contractors was declared February 25, 1906, and had ever since remained in effect; that owing to such strike it became necessary to secure nonunion painters, and a general strike resulted.

In view of the modification of the injunction, which modification alone is before us for review, but one paragraph of the bill need be quoted.

'(16) And your orator further alleges that the said conspiring labor unions and the said Building Trades Council have further conspired and confederated together for the purpose of preventing any persons but members of the said labor unions from obtaining work or employment in the city of Tampa in the various departments of labor to which members of the said unions belong, respectively, and to enforce the object of such conspiracy by threatening to boycott and by boycotting all employers employing other than union laborers belonging to the said respective labor unions, and your orator further alleges that each of the said conspiring labor unions has adopted rules forbidding its members from working for any employer who shall employ nonunion labor, and that the said rules have been so adopted and contrived for the purpose and with the design and intention, and in pursuance of a conspiracy on the part of the said labor unions, to prohibit the employment of any laborers in the city of Tampa, except members of the said unions, and with the purpose, design, and intention of securing the entire field for labor in the city of Tampa to members of the said respective unions, and excluding all other persons therefrom, and that the said rules, so made in pursuance of the said conspiracy, have been heretofore and are now enforced and carried out by the said conspiring labor unions, and the enforcement and carrying out thereof is one of the main objects to which the efforts of the said conspiring labor unions have been heretofore, and are now, directed, and members of the said and other affiliated labor unions in the various departments of labor are bound to comply with the said rules under penalties therein prescribed, and a continued failure to comply therewith on the part of such members renders them liable to expulsion, and to be considered and treated as nonunion workmen.'

The injunction prayed for was granted without notice. Thereupon the defendants answered, and asked that the injunction be dissolved.

The answer denies all acts of violence, threats, or intimidation, but avers that the agreement which had existed between the Painters' Union and the master painters, wherein the daily wage was fixed at $3.28 a day if the work was done for the master painters and $3.78 a day if done for others, was repudiated and annulled by the National Association, and that the master painters would enter into no further agreement satisfactory to the union painters, and employed nonunion painters, 'whereupon the members of the Painters' Union refused to work on any job or contract on which nonunion painters were employed, as they have a legal right to do, and notified, as under their rules and regulations they had a right to do, other unions of their action; and the defendants say that it is a rule of their unions that they and their members will not work in shops or on contracts in which or on which laborers are employed who do not belong to the unions, and they, through their officers, have so notified the complainant,' and further, that they will not use materials furnished by one who employs nonunion laborers. The carpenters and other union workmen who were bound by similar rules also went out on strike.

Upon the hearing for dissolution upon bill, answer, and affidavits, the following provisional order was entered:

'It is ordered and decreed that the temporary injunction issued herein on May 5th, ult., be modified as follows: That the said defendants, and each of them, their members, officers, agents, and representatives, and each and every of them, be, and they are hereby, restrained and enjoined,

'(1) From using any means, methods, or devices whatever to intimidate or to prevent, by any kind of threats, violence, or coercion, any person or persons, whether members of any labor union or not, from accepting employment from the complainant in any capacity.

'(2) From using any means, methods, or devices to prevent the complainant from employing any person or persons whomsoever, whether members of any labor union or not, and from interfering with any employé of the complainant while in its employment, and

'(3) From boycotting or attempting to boycott the complainant's business, by using any means, method, or device to prevent any person, firm, or corporation from selling to or purchasing from the complainant any building material or other article of value: provided, that nothing herein contained is intended to interfere with the several defendants, as unions or societies, in imposing upon their own members such pains and penalties as may be prescribed by their respective constitutions, by-laws, rules, or regulations in such case made and provided.

'It is further ordered that this restraining order shall remain in force until the further decree of the court in the premises.'

From the modification contained in the proviso the complainant appeals, assigning as error this proviso. The defendants assign no cross-errors, and are not complaining here.

Fortunately there have been few differences in this section of this country between labor and capital, and this is the first case that has reached this court. Other parts of the Union have not escaped, however, and other courts have for the past two decades been forced to wrestle with the grave problems involved, not always with unanimity, however, and many of the great questions are still open. Moreover, may it not be judicial to add that, as the questions trench so close upon the political, they may finally be solved...