United States v. National Ass'n. of Glass Mfrs., 817.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | 817. |
| Citation | 287 F. 228 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. NATIONAL ASS'N OF WINDOW GLASS MFRS. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Roger Shale, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gerard J. Pilliod, Asst U.S. Atty., of Toledo, Ohio, for the United States.
Squire Sanders & Dempsey, of Cleveland, Ohio, John W. Davis, of New York City, Patterson, Crawford, Miller & Arensburg, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Stetson, Jennings & Russell, of New York City, for National Ass'n of Window Glass Mfrs.
Calfee Fogg & White, of Cleveland, Ohio, and I. L. Broadwin, of New York City (Pierre A. White, of Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel) for National Ass'n of Window Glass Workers.
This suit is brought, under favor of section 4 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law (Comp. St. Sec. 8823), to dissolve and enjoin an agreement and combination in restraint of interstate trade or commerce. The manufacturers of hand-blown window glass, said to comprise substantially all engaged in that industry, are charged with having agreed through their wage committee with a workers' organization, said to comprise all laborers in the hand-blown glass industry, upon a wage scale which, in view of the conditions surrounding the industry and the manner in which the wage agreement is observed and enforced, curtails production of window glass, restricts its distribution in interstate trade, and limits the opportunity of the workers to follow their normal occupation. Upon the filing of this bill, a motion was made for a preliminary injunction. The defendants having all appeared and answered, the hearing of this motion was by agreement converted into a final hearing and the case submitted for a final decree on the merits.
Whether an agreement or combination prohibited by section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law (Comp. St. Sec. 8820) is shown to exist depends upon the determination of certain disputed propositions, namely: (1) That this wage agreement, with the resulting combination to enforce it, relates only to the production and manufacture of hand-blown window glass, and not directly to interstate commerce therein, but, if interstate commerce is affected or restrained thereby, such restraint is so indirect or incidental as not to be within the law; (2) that this wage agreement is a lawful means of carrying out the legitimate objects of a labor organization instituted for purposes of mutual help, and is therefore exempt from the provisions of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law by section 6 of the Clayton Act (Comp. St. Sec. 8835f), even though it may indirectly and incidentally curtail production or restrict interstate trade in hand-blown window glass; (3) that, even if this wage agreement and the resulting combination to enforce it do restrict interstate trade and curtail production of hand-blown window glass, such restrictions are not so unreasonable under all the circumstances of the case as to be illegal and within the law. The government asserts the contrary of all these contentions and that an illegal agreement and combination is shown directly and necessarily restraining and intending to restrain interstate trade or commerce in hand-blown window glass.
Before considering the law relating to these several propositions, a brief statement of the facts is deemed necessary. The controlling facts are not in dispute. A wage committee, acting for and on behalf of the National Association of Window Glass Manufacturers, on or about September 16, 1922, entered into an agreement with a wage committee acting for and on behalf of the National Association of Window Glass Workers. This Association of Manufacturers comprises substantially all the makers and producers of hand-blown window glass. Their factories are located in various states of the Union, among others, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The bulk of their product is sold and shipped in interstate commerce in the usual manner, and in large part through the Johnston Brokerage Company, the principal office of which is at Pittsburgh, Pa. The National Association of Window Glass Workers comprises all the skilled workmen in the hand-blown window glass industry. This trade is highly skilled. It is undisputed that there are no skilled workmen other than members of this organization, and that no manufacturer who cannot obtain a wage scale from this association can operate his factory or produce hand-blown window glass. This is true, not merely because there are no other available workers, but because members of the Workers' Association will not work in any factory which has not been given a wage scale such as was agreed to by the respective wage committees of the two associations.
The wage agreement now in force, and agreed upon on or about September 16, 1922, contains the following provision of which the government complains, namely:
'This wage agreement shall be in effect from September 25, 1922, to January 27, 1923, during which period the scale shall be in full force for 16 weeks or 96 working days, and from January 29, 1923, to June 11, 1923, during which time the scale shall be in force for 18 weeks or 108 working days.'
Thus it appears that the factories are required to operate upon what is called a two-period system. The manufacturers are divided into two groups, called group A and group B. All are required to sign this wage agreement and must operate subject to the time limitations thus imposed. When this agreement took effect, it is said there were 65 factories in existence equipped to make hand-blown window glass, but of this number 56 only expressed a purpose to operate during the ensuing year. The half classified in group A, having signed the agreement, were in a position to operate during the first period of 16 weeks, and the other half, after having signed the agreement, were in a position to operate during the second period of 18 weeks. The plan of operation thus contemplated is the one which has been and is being followed.
No operator is given a wage agreement permitting him to operate during both periods, unless he shall have two separate factories and should be willing to operate one only during the first period, and close it at the time he opens the other for operation during the second period.
No operator having only one plant has been furnished a wage agreement permitting him to operate continuously during both periods. All applications under this agreement, and, as the evidence shows, under prior agreements of like nature, for permission to operate continuously through two periods, have been denied, except with a few rare exceptions, depending on special circumstances. The testimony shows that a number of applications have been made by factories operating under the present agreement in the first period, for permission to continue to operate in the second period, and that all of them have been refused. The testimony also shows that in the preceding year, under a similar agreement, an operator who desired to equip a second factory, so that he might continue production during the second period, was compelled, before being given a wage scale, to build an entirely independent factory, and not merely an additional furnace and equipment, at a cost of $75,000.
It must therefore be found that the true purpose and intent of all parties concerned is and has been that one-half of the manufacturers of hand-blown window glass should operate, produce glass, and sell and distribute it only during the first period, from September 25, 1922, to January 27, 1923; that they should then close their several plants and keep them idle during the remainder of the year; that the other group should keep their plants idle and out of operation during the first period, and that they should then, at the beginning of the second period, open their plants and put them into production from January 29, 1923, to June 11, 1923, at which time they should again close down and keep their plants idle during the remainder of the year. That this result was to be effected by means of the present wage agreement and by the division of the manufacturers into two groups, neither operating at the same time, but only in successive periods, must also be held to be fully established by the evidence.
This organization of the industry into two periods began in the year 1918. The circumstances leading up to this organization bear materially on the intent of the parties in continuing it. The two-period system owes its existence to the restrictions imposed by the United States government during the war upon nonessential industries, in order to conserve fuel and labor. An order was made in the latter part of 1917 limiting the production of hand-blown window glass during 1918 to one-half of that which had been produced in the preceding year. This reduced quantity was agreed upon in conference between representatives of the Manufacturers' and Workers' Associations, on the one hand, and the proper authorities of the United States government, on the other. The quantity agreed to as one-half the production for the preceding year was 1,263 boxes per shop or pot. At the time this conclusion was arrived at a number of factories were idle, owing to the scarcity of gas and other fuel, resulting from an exceptionally severe winter, and thereupon the factories then idle refrained from resuming operations until the others then in operation had produced their respective quotas. As a result of this enforced restriction on production, it was discovered by the representatives of the workers, if not of the manufacturers, that this two-period system of operation was beneficial and advantageous, and the industry has ever since been operated in this way. Certain reasons are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Application of Iaconi
...prevent the process of that grand jury from being used abusively. This seems to me the teaching of United States v. National Association of Window Glass Manufacturers, D.C.Ohio, 287 F. 228, and I find nothing contrary to that rule in In re Grand Jury Proceedings, D.C.E.D. of Pa. 4 F.Supp. 2......