Ruddy v. United Ass'n of Journeymen Plumbers

Decision Date15 February 1910
Citation79 N.J.L. 467,75 A. 742
PartiesRUDDY v. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN PLUMBERS, GAS FITTERS, STEAM FITTERS, AND STEAM FITTERS' HELPERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL NO. 24, et al.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Appeal from District Court of Newark.

Action by Antony S. Ruddy against the United Association of Journeymen Plumbers, Gas Fitters, Steam Fitters, and Steam Fitters' Helpers of the United States and Canada, Local No. 24, and William Ryan. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued February term. 1909, before REED, TRENCHARD, and MINTURN, JJ.

Beecher & Bedford, for appellants.

Samuel Press and Harry Kalisch, for appellee.

REED, J. This case was tried before a district court without a jury. The court has sent up the stenographer's notes taken on the trial, with a general finding in favor of the plaintiff. The question is whether the trial court could find in any rational view of the evidence a situation which would support this finding.

Mr. Ruddy, the plaintiff, was a plumber, and was employed as such by one William Jacobi, who discharged Mr. Ruddy. Afterward Mr. Ruddy was employed by F. J. Sturm, and was also discharged by him. The plaintiff claims that he was discharged in both instances because one William Ryan, the business agent of Local Union No. 24 of the United Association Journeymen Plumbers, Gas Fitters, Steam Fitters, and Steam Fitters Helpers of the United States and Canada, acting for that association, caused Ruddy's employers to discharge him. There is testimony to show that Ruddy while working for Mr. Jacobi was approached by Ryan, who was admittedly the agent of the association, and that Ryan asked Ruddy to join Local No. 24. Ruddy told Ryan that he already belonged to one local union, and did not see why he should make any change. Ryan then saw Jacobi and told him that he would have to discharge nonunion men. Jacobi then discharged Ruddy, and Ryan sent Jacobi union men to take Ruddy's place, Ryan said to Jacobi: "We have union men, and you should have union men, and Mr. Ruddy is not a union man, and to harmonize matters you ought to employ union men." Again, when Ruddy was afterward working for Sturm, Ryan went to see Sturm, and told him that he had a nonunion man working for him. Sturm told Ryan that the man belonged to Local No. 5, and Ryan replied that there were objections; that the other men would not work with Local No. 5. Mr. Sturm took Ruddy off the job on which he was then working, and put him at some jobbing work elsewhere. Ryan came to see Mr. Sturm again, and said that he, Sturm, would have to lay off that man, that he was not a union man; that is, he did not belong to their local. Sturm said to him: "This job is so near completed I would like to have him finish this job." Ryan replied: "I will get you a good man." Sturm promised to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Gevas v. Greek Rest. Workers' Club
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • August 13, 1926
    ...the conduct of members of a labor organization, to which such employees do not belong, in instigating a strike. Ruddy v. United Association, 79 N. J. Law, 467, 75 A. 742; Eagle Glass Co. v. Rowe, 245 U. S. 275, 38 S. Ct. 80, 62 L. Ed. 286; Hitchman Coal Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U. S. 229, 38 S.......
  • W. A. Manda, Inc. v. City of Orange
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • February 28, 1910

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT