Otis v. Steel Co. Local Union No. 218, of Cleveland, Ohio, of Iron Molders' Union of North America

• Decision Date: 09 July 1901
• Docket Number: 6,220.
• Citation: 110 F. 698
• Parties: OTIS STEEL CO., Limited, v. LOCAL UNION NO. 218, OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, OF IRON MOLDERS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

110 F. 698

OTIS STEEL CO., Limited, v. LOCAL UNION NO. 218, OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, OF IRON MOLDERS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA et al.

No. 6,220.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

July 9, 1901

Squire Sanders & Dempsey, for complainant.

Foran McTighe & Baker, for defendants.

WING District Judge (orally).

It will be unnecessary, at this time, to go over all of the recitals and allegations of the bill. It contains charges that the defendants, Local Union No. 218 of the Iron Molders' Union of North America, and certain individuals named as defendants, who are said to be members of that union, and others whose names are not known, have attempted by various means, including the establishment and maintenance of 'pickets,' to interfere with the operation of the complainant's mill, and with its employment of men disapproved by the defendants, and it is also alleged that violence and riotous acts have accompanied these attempts. The answer denies that any violence has been committed by the defendants, and sets up as a defense, at considerable length a history of what is called the 'old strike,' which commenced in July, 1900, and alleges that some agreement of settlement of that strike was made, and that such agreement of settlement was broken by the complainant, and that a new strike was instituted about April 1st of this year. Affidavits are filed by the complainant in which are described instances of violence of recent dates-- one occurring on the 6th of April-- in the neighborhood of the complainant's plant, and several of the defendants are named as having been engaged in these disturbances. It is also stated in the affidavits that violence has been perpetrated by some of the defendants upon some of the molders now employed by the complainant, and upon their guardians, or special policemen, hired to protect them. Some acts of violence are described in these affidavits as occurring as recently as the 21st of May last, and certain individual defendants are named as having been engaged therein. It is also alleged in these affidavits that threats have been made by unknown people at a boarding house at which some of the employes of the complainant lived. Counsel for the defendants have correctly stated that, so far as any individuals have been named as having been engaged in these acts of violence and riot, such individuals, with the exception of two, have filed affidavits that they know nothing of the doings described, and that they are not guilty of the offenses charged. Whatever the truth may be upon the disputed questions as to whether actual violence was indulged in by the defendants, or some of them, it appears from affidavits filed by the defendants, and it is practically an agreed fact in this case, that 'picketing,' so called, has been employed, as a means of carrying out its purposes, by the defendant association, during all of the first strike, or what is called the 'old strike,' as also during the second strike, which has been in existence since April 1st; and that such picketing was suspended for some weeks, during the time when it was supposed an agreement had been arrived at between the striking molders and their employer. Counsel for the defendants have gone into a somewhat lengthy history of the writ of injunction, with a view of impressing upon the court the great care that should be exercised by the courts in the use of the writ as a remedy. It is peculiarly appropriate, in the analysis of these strike cases, to consider the great power which the jurisdiction to issue this writ confers, and the strict boundaries which should confine its use, because the beginning of all this trouble was the attempt of the Iron Molders' Union, No. 218, without the assistance of a court, to enjoin the complainant from operating its plant. That injunction was attempted to be enforced, not only against the complainant, but against all nonunion molders and its terms, as addressed to the complainant, were, in substance, 'You must not proceed with your business and the operation of your plant unless you comply with the conditions which we have imposed;' and, as to the nonunion molders, 'You shall not work for the Otis Steel Company. ' It would not be claimed for a moment that there has ever existed any authority in the defendant to so issue its edicts against either the complainant or the nonunion molders. The assumed right to thus dictate to others may be referred to an unfounded notion on the part of this molders'...