Trade Press Pub. Co. v. Moore

• Decision Date: 03 May 1923
• Citation: 180 Wis. 449,193 N.W. 507
• Parties: TRADE PRESS PUB. CO. ET AL. v. MOORE ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

180 Wis. 449

193 N.W. 507

TRADE PRESS PUB. CO. ET AL.

v.MOORE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 1, 1923.

Dissenting Opinion May 3, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Oscar M. Fritz, Judge.

Action for injunction by the Trade Press Publishing Company and others against Raymond T. Moore and others, members of Milwaukee Typographical Union No. 23. From orders overruling demurrer to the complaint and continuing an injunction, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Crownhart and Jones, JJ., dissenting.

Separate appeals from two orders, one overruling the demurrer to the complaint and the other continuing an injunction, were presented and decided together.

The parts of the complaint so far as deemed material are in substance as follows:

The plaintiffs, 10 in number, Wisconsin corporations, for many years last past engaged in the printing business in the city and county of Milwaukee. They employ on an average 125 compositors or typesetters. Each has built up a large and valuable business with a valuable good will. Each has had contracts for printing work with customers within and without the city of Milwaukee.

“That all of the plaintiffs herein have an interest in the subject of this action and in obtaining the relief demanded, and are all united in interest as plaintiffs, and that the alleged conspiracy of the defendants as hereinafter set forth, and the unlawful acts done pursuant thereto, were directed and done to affect all of the plaintiffs jointly and severally, and all are still being so directed and so done.”

That July 1, 1918, through a committee of a voluntary association of which all the plaintiffs were members, they entered into a contract to last until June 30, 1921, with the Milwaukee Typographical Union No. 23. Such contract provided for a fixed scale of wages for the employed members of such union; limitations as to the number of apprentices to be employed and as to the wages to be paid learners; that the plaintiffs should employ in their respective plants such mechanics and workmen only as were members of the defendant union; and a standard work week of 48 hours.

That the said Union No. 23 is an unincorporated voluntary labor organization and the individual defendants are members thereof; that certain of the defendants are its officers and executive board; that among the functions and purposes of such officers and executive board is to call and direct strikes of the union members against their employers; that there are 250 members of such union, which is a unit or part of a national labor union known as the International Typographical Union with general direction and dictation over this and similar unions in other cities of the United States.

That prior to July 1, 1921, the said Local Union No. 23, in accordance with a nationwide plan of the International Union, presented to and insisted that the plaintiffs sign an agreement or contract with said local union for a year beginning July 1, 1921, providing among other things for a 44-hour standard and with increased wages and a provision requiring that none but mechanics and workmen, members of Union No. 23, should be employed by plaintiffs in their printing establishments. That the effect of such contract would be to continue the “closed shop.” That the plaintiffs were unwilling to enter into such agreement and so informed the local union. That the plaintiffs had theretofore acted together in treating with said union through one agency.

That on said July 1st, in pursuance of a conspiracy between the defendants as individuals and as members of such local union and countenanced and directed by the International Union, the local union called a strike of the compositors who then and there left plaintiffs' employment in a body and remained out thereafter.

That about August 9th the plaintiffs, with other printing firms of the same city, agreed that they would operate their composing rooms on an open shop basis as had been done since July 1st, and further agreed not to enter into any agreement or contract directly or indirectly with said local union; such being done from plaintiffs' conclusion that it was for their best interests to continue to operate as an open shop and not to deal with the said union or any union of compositors. That the plaintiffs announced in the public press and otherwise and especially in writing to the local union of such contract on the part of the plaintiffs and other printing firms, some of which had also been under similar contracts with the defendant local union. That about October 15th plaintiffs entered into individual contracts with employees in their composing rooms. The form of such individual contracts provided, among other things, for the employment by the separate plaintiffs of the individual employee for a period of one year; subject to termination by either party on one month's written notice; with a provision as to the weekly wage subject to mutual adjustment at the end of the calendar month; that 48 hours shall constitute a work week and providing that the employer may, if the employee's work has not proven satisfactory, terminate the employment without liability except for wages; that the employer will continue to operate upon the open shop basis; and that during the period of employment the employee shall not become a member of any strike or boycott.

That on October 25th, notice in writing was given on behalf of the plaintiffs to the defendant union that plaintiffs had entered into such written contracts with their employees and requesting that the union forthwith cease in attempts at interference with the contract relation existing between the plaintiffs and their employees.

It further alleged on information and belief that the contents of such notice were communicated to the defendants and other members of the local union; that ever since the calling of the strike above stated plaintiffs have lawfully endeavored to continue their business and to engage and retain employees in their composing rooms; that the defendants have illegally and unlawfully interfered with the plaintiffs by threatening various of their employees and operatives with bodily injury if they would not join the strikers; have stopped many of the plaintiffs' employees as they were lawfully and peacefully entering the plants and called them “scabs,” “skunks,” “rats,” and other vile names; have struck, assaulted and wounded members of plaintiffs' employees while going to and returning from their homes and work; have sought to make plaintiffs' employees leave their employment; have gathered in numbers in and about the plaintiffs' plants; have obstructed and attemptedto obstruct the free passage to plaintiffs' employees to and from their premises. Various other acts are alleged of interference, harassing, and injuring the plaintiffs' employees. Also the gathering in groups of defendants, their agents and confederates, at or near plaintiffs' premises, of picketing and patrolling the highways near and approaches to plaintiffs' plants for such purposes of intimidation; that various of plaintiffs' employees have been intimidated and put to fear by reason of such acts which are still continued.

That despite the notices above recited given to defendants of the purpose of plaintiffs to run on an open shop basis, the defendants continued to conspire to force the plaintiffs to enter into agreements with the defendant local union to conduct closed shop composing rooms, and that the purpose of the conspiracy and the acts have been for such purpose. That the good will of the plaintiffs' business has been damaged and interfered with by such acts of the defendants, and that they are bent in their conspiracy upon destroying and wrecking such businesses and have illegally and unlawfully interfered with the contract relation between the plaintiffs and their present employees. That plaintiffs are without adequate remedy at law, inasmuch as the defendants threaten to continue and are continuing in their conspiracy the illegal and unlawful acts in said complaint set forth and will so continue unless restrained by the court.

Plaintiffs demanded as relief that the defendants, their agents, servants, confederates, and attorneys, be perpetually enjoined from further carrying out the conspiracy and for a temporary injunction, and for an accounting for any damages, and for other and further relief.

The complaint was verified on November 4, 1921, the substantial parts of which verification are as follows:

“State of Wisconsin, County of Milwaukee--ss.: Edward J. Meisenheimer being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that he has heard read and knows the contents of the above and foregoing complaint and that the same is true to his own knowledge except as to those matters therein stated on information and belief; and as to those matters he believes it to be true; and that the reason this verification is made by this affiant is that all of the plaintiffs herein are corporations united in interest and that this affiant is an officer of one of the plaintiffs, to wit, the Meisenheimer Printing Co., and that this affiant is an officer thereof, to wit, its president, and that this affiant's source of knowledge is the actual observance of the matters set forth in the complaint and inspection and knowledge of the documents therein described and reports made to this affiant by subordinates in the usual course of business.

+-------------------------------+
                ¦[Signed]¦Edw. J. Meisenheimer.”¦
                +-------------------------------+
                

Numerous affidavits were at the same time presented on behalf of the plaintiffs as to occurrences between the time of calling of the strike July 1st and the commencement of this action.

Upon such complaint and affidavits a temporary injunction was issued on November 4th, and upon a subsequent hearing the same was modified to some extent and as so modified continued.

Prior to such hearing, and used thereon, an adverse examination...