Shine v. Fox Bros. Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 October 1907
• Citation: 156 F. 357
• Parties: SHINE et al. v. FOX BROS. MFG. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

156 F. 357

SHINE et al. v. FOX BROS. MFG. CO.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

October 19, 1907

George H. Shields and Shepard Barclay (Thomas T. Fauntleroy and Cornelius H. Fauntleroy, on the brief), for appellants.

Herbert R. Marlatt and F. H. Sullivan, for appellees.

Before SANBORN, HOOK, and ADAMS, Circuit Judges.

HOOK Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order temporarily enjoining certain labor organizations and their officers from boycotting the manufacturing company and the product of its factory. The action of the trial court was in view of the following facts The complainant, the manufacturing company, is engaged in the manufacture of sash, doors, blinds, and other articles used in the construction of buildings. Its factory is located in St. Louis, Mo., and is what is known as an 'open shop'; that is to say, the complainant did not discriminate between union and nonunion labor, but left that matter to the voluntary choice of its employes. So far as complainant was concerned, workmen of both classes could obtain employment there. In fact, however, its employes numbering from 50 to 75, were nonunion. The rules of the union labor organizations did not permit their members to work in an open shop except in special cases and for specific purposes. There were 23 open shop factories in St. Louis like complainant's, and their product, which was commonly called 'trim,' was about 80 per cent. of the total amount used annually in the building operations in that city. The employes in these factories, about 1,000 in number, were nonunion, excepting perhaps 3 or 4. By far the greater proportion, probably upward of 90 per cent., of the carpenters engaged in the erection of buildings in St Louis belonged to union labor organizations. In this state of affairs, a representative of the national organization known as the 'United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America' came from New York to St. Louis for the purpose of organizing the open shop factories in St. Louis into closed or union shops. He took charge of and directed the course of the defendants to accomplish that end. Although action was taken against some of the other open shop factories, it is quite clear from the evidence that complainant was selected for especial attention. There seemed to be in its case more persistent and concentrated efforts. The defendants did not go about it by approaching complainant's employes and persuading them to join the union labor organizations, but they endeavored to make it impossible for complainant to continue its business unless it would adjust the wages and hours of labor to the union scale and require its employes to join the unions or leave its service. The defendants did not seek the assent or co-operation of the nonunion employes. Their efforts were not solicited by those employes, nor did the complainant invite their intervention. The relations between complainant and its employes were mutually satisfactory. There was no strike, and no controversy about wages, hours, or other conditions of service. The defendants sought to accomplish their purpose in this way: Upon the...