Longshore Printing & Pub. Co. v. Howell

• Decision Date: 17 December 1894
• Citation: 38 P. 547,26 Or. 527
• Parties: LONGSHORE PRINTING & PUB. CO. v. HOWELL et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

38 P. 547

26 Or. 527

LONGSHORE PRINTING & PUB. CO. v. HOWELL et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

December 17, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; Loyal B. Stearns Judge.

Suit by the Longshore Printing & Publishing Company against George H Howell, president of the Multnomah Typographical Union No 58, and others, for an injunction. Judgment for defendants and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The plaintiff was incorporated March 21, 1891, and is engaged in the business of lithographing, engraving, printing, and publishing journals, newspapers, etc. The Multnomah Typographical Union is an unincorporated voluntary association, of which the defendant George Howell is president. The defendants J.M. Maxwell, John Rhodes, Nat L Cassady, J.C. Gallagher, M. Goughler, L.B. Johnson, and Hugh Glen are members of the present executive committee, of which Maxwell is chairman, and E. De Armand, L. Statham, J. Jordan, John Filbin, George F. Halsey, and M.A. Lundwall ex-members of the same committee. The object of the association, as declared by the preamble to its constitution, is in part to establish and maintain an equitable scale of wages, and to protect its members from sudden or unreasonable fluctuations in the rate of compensation for their labor, and to protect just and honorable employers from the unfair competition of unscrupulous and unreliable rivals, to defend their rights and advance their interests as workmen, to create an authority, whose seal shall constitute a certificate of character, intelligence, and skill, to foster fellowship and brotherhood, to aid the destitute and unfortunate, and to encourage the principle and practice of conciliation and arbitration in the settlement of differences between labor and capital. The membership, consisting of about 200, is confined to printers, and includes only persons directly employed in printing books, newspapers, etc., such as compositors, proofreaders, foremen, pressmen, and stereotypers. Section 1, art. 15, of the constitution provides that when a vote is taken in the union on ordering a strike, on a reduction of a scale, alteration of a scale, or any dispute as to the construction of a scale, *** it must be by secret ballot, etc.; and section 2, that no person shall be allowed to vote for or against a strike unless he shall have been a member in good standing for six months prior to the ballot. A scale of wages has been adopted and made a part of the constitution. The by-laws, among other things, provide as follows:

"Section 1, art. 6. Each newspaper office employing less than twenty-five men in its composing room shall be entitled to one apprentice. Where twenty-five or more are employed, two apprentices shall be allowed. Each job office shall be entitled to one apprentice. In offices employing five journeymen on an average, two apprentices may be employed."

"Section 1, art. 8. Any member failing to comply with the constitution, by-laws, and other established regulations of this union, or guilty of the willful violation of any boycott adopted by the union, the International Typographical Union, or any trades or labor unions represented by the delegates in a trades assembly in which this union is represented, *** shall be punished by fine, reprimand, suspension, or expulsion.

"Sec. 2. Any member accepting work in any office where the hands have struck on any question involving the regulations of this union, the union having ordered such strike, and who shall refuse to cease work when ordered by the president or executive committee, shall be suspended or expelled, as may be determined by two-thirds of the members voting."

These facts appear from the complaint, in which the following grounds for relief are also, in substance, alleged: That plaintiff has an expensive plant, and has acquired a lucrative and remunerative business. That about 16 months after plaintiff had established itself in business it ascertained that its employés were being interviewed by the defendants and their associates, and that its business was being injuriously interfered with by them. That the plaintiff and its officers have heretofore refused to submit to all the laws, rules, and regulations of the union, or to permit the union to dictate the mode and manner in which it shall conduct its business; and that for this reason the executive committee and the officers and members of the union combined and conspired to compel a compliance with such rules and regulations, and a submission to the dictates of the union in that respect, upon pain of being boycotted in its business. The plaintiff had in its employ a number of the members of the union and other persons, among whom was a messenger boy engaged in putting in order the odds and ends of the office, whose time was not fully occupied, which boy the executive committee demanded should be dismissed from service, and, upon being refused, without license or any lawful business, entered the premises of plaintiff, and ordered all the members of the union then and there to cease working for plaintiff, under penalty of being dealt with in accordance with the rules and regulations of the union. That the workmen were intimidated and influenced thereby, and at once obeyed the order, and without notice to plaintiff ceased work, and left its premises, leaving its contracts with patrons unfinished, many of which were important and emergent. That the said committee and members of the union circulated the fact that the employés of the plaintiff had been called off, and its office left without hands, and on the 27th and 28th days of August, 1892, published the following advertisement in the local news columns of the Oregonian: "To Our Friends: Persons intending having job printing done will bear in mind that the Longshore establishment, on Front, between Alder and Washington streets, is a non-union office. Ex.Com. M.T.U. No. 58." That at the same time the members of said executive committee, in their official as well as personal capacity, visited numerous patrons of the plaintiff, and informed them that plaintiff was under the ban of the union's displeasure, and held out the threat and intimated to said patrons that if they continued to patronize plaintiff the members of the union, and such others as they could influence, would withdraw their business from them. That subsequently thereto the plaintiff put in a bid to the common council of the city of Portland for doing the city printing for the year 1893, which was the lowest bid made for said work, and that said executive committee and members of the union, for the purpose of preventing the acceptance of said bid, threatened said council and the members thereof with their displeasure and boycott at the polls should they seek re-election, and with injury to their private business interests, if they disregarded their demands, and that said council for that reason alone rejected plaintiff's bid. That the defendants maliciously, unlawfully, and persistently pursued this course for about eight months, when they ceased their attacks for a short time only. That on the 12th day of March, 1893, plaintiff had in its employ two apprentices, but that it also had in its employ on an average five journeymen. That the defendants demanded that it discharge one of said apprentices, and, upon being refused, the union passed a resolution ordering all men working for plaintiff to quit, and, they being intimidated thereby, obeyed the order, leaving plaintiff without necessary assistance to carry on its business; and that the executive committee, with malicious intent, conspiring and contriving to injure and destroy the business of plaintiff, posted the following notice in numerous places, viz.: "Owing to the Longshore Printing Company breaking the rules of the Multnomah Typographical Union, all members of the union were withdrawn March 16th, '93,"--and also notified plaintiff that they now intended to fight it to the death. That ever since that time the defendants and other members of the union have persistently visited and harassed the patrons of plaintiff with demands that they cease to give their work to it upon penalty of incurring the ill will and displeasure of not only this but all labor unions. That the apprehension of loss of trade and the business of the members of said union and other labor unions, and the continual harassing and vexatious visits and interviews to which they have been subjected, have induced a large number of plaintiff's best patrons to withdraw their patronage from it; among others, the Meier & Frank Company, whose printing work is valuable; and that Mason, Ehrman & Co., whose business is also valuable, have notified plaintiff of its intention to so withdraw their patronage. And the plaintiff further alleges, in substance: That the whole scope, object, and intent of said typographical union are to create a monopoly of labor in the printing business, and that its said interference with plaintiff is an infringement upon private right, and against public policy. That said union arrogates to itself the right to dictate to employers as to whom and what persons they shall employ, and, if compliance with its dictates is withheld, then the right to force obedience through the instrumentality of the boycott. That the defendants and all the members of the union have unlawfully, maliciously, and deliberately conspired to destroy the business of plaintiff, and render its plant and property valueless, or, as an alternative, to drive plaintiff, against its will, into a submission to the laws, rules, and regulations of the union; and that all the aforesaid acts of defendants and other members of the union have been committed in pursuance of such conspiracy and combination. That in furtherance of said common purpose, defe...