Blandford v. Duthie

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The bill of complaint in this oa'se, from decrees in- which these appeals were taken, was filed by Charles W. Blandford and William G. Blandford, trading as ,Yaile & Young, ³⁹⁰ against William K. Duthie and others, individually and as a voluntary, unincorporated association, doing business as, and trading under the name of, Allied Building Trades Council of Baltimore, and certain other local unions and their representatives, and the Benjamin F. Bennett Building Company, a body corporate. The hill sought au injunction against the defendants, other than the Bennett Company, to restrain them from boycotting the business of the plaintiffs. It alleges that the defendants, other than the Bennett Company, are all members of certain trades unions in Baltimore City, each of said unions being composed of a large number of men whose names and addresses, except those mentioned, axe unknown to plaintiffs, and .all of said unions being voluntary unincorporated associations bonded together for the purposes of their respective trades o>r businesses., and each having elected delegates or members to serve as members of the defendant, the Allied Building Trades Council of Baltimore; that the object and purpose of the formation of said council -is to compel, by ¿whatever means may be necesr sary, the unionizing of the .shops and businesses of the various industries in Baltimore City; that the defendant Edward D. B'ieritz has for many years been known as the principal spokesman for said council; that the business of plaintiffs (sheet metal roofing) is almost entirely connected with the building trades, and about eighty per cent, of it is done with building contractors; that its reputation has been built up during the forty years of its existence, during which time they have been invited to bid on the roofing work of a large portion of the building operations in Baltimore, by owners, architects and general contractors; that for many years plaintiffs have been doing business with, and have been employed by, the said Bennett Company and its predecessors; that in the fall of 1923 said Bennett Company secured the contract for the ’alterations and improvements to he made by Hutzler Brothers on North Howard Street in said city, and plaintiffs being the lowest bidders were awarded by said Bennett Company contracts for the metal roofing' work in connection there ³⁹¹ with amounting to $11,485, and proceeded to assemble the material and begin the manufacture in their shops of so much of the work embraced in their contracts as could be done there; that for twelve years plaintiffs have conducted an open shop, and have employed their men without regard to their labor affiliations, ,and have always paid wages equal to .and in most instances greater than, those prescribed by labor unions for like work; that they employ fifty men, thirty-five of whom are skilled workmen, some of whom have been in their employ for over thirty years, :a number for ten or fifteen years', and’ none less than four years, all of whom have been satisfied with their wages and working conditions; that numerous attempts have been made by members of labor unions to persuade ©aid employees to become members of unions, without success, although plaintiffs interposed no objections; that in. a number of instances plaintiffs have failed to get contracts where they were the lowest bidders and are convinced that this was due to threats and intimidations made by defendants against those having authority to award contracts; that in April, 1924, a number of said defendants, to wit: the said Bieritz, John L. Lawless, Long, and Duthie visited plaintiffs’ place of business as representatives of the said council, Bieritz explaining to plaintiffs the advantages of organizing their shop, and stating that the council had the sympathy of the builders; that Bieritz said that plaintiffs’ shop: did' not need organization, but it was necessary because of the effect upon others in a similar line of business; that he further stated that there were a number of instances where he had been able to get in touch with contractors before they awarded the jobs and that he had prevented said contractors from awarding the jobs to plaintiffs; and in other instances where jobs were awarded to them he had gotten the promise of the contractors not to1 give plaintiffs any Work in the future; that another representative said “there were many ways whereby your workman could be handicapped and annoyed while at work on building”; that at the close of the interview Bieritz ©aid: “Now, Mr. Bland ³⁹² fotrd, you have to admit that in your ease we have been vetry patient; Mu Baker and I have made several attempts to convince you of the advisability of closing, your1 shop; the time has arrived when definite action has to be taken”; that plaintiffs took all this to. mean that it Was the intention of defendants, in the event plaintiffs did not unionize their shops., to do everything in their power to prevent them from getting business from people with whom they are now and have been doing business for a long time, and from completing contracts already secured; that the following correspondence took place between plaintiffs and the Bennett.

Gompany, viz.: “Baltimore, Md., April 26th, 1924. “Benjamin. E. Bennett Building Company, “123 S. Howard' Street, “Baltimore, Md. “Gentlemen: “On Thursday, April 24th, 1924, your Mr. B. Erank Bennett verbally requested the writer that our firm discontinue shop work upon the material required to complete the following contracts we have with yon on the Hntzler job: “Your letter January 30th, 1924. Our acceptance Eeb. 4, 1924. “Our letter March 29th, 1924. Your acceptance April 5, 1924. “Our letter April 3rd, 1924.

Your letter April 9th, 1924. “We have given this request careful consideration, and we have concluded that our contractual obligations with you, and the business reputation of this firm covering a period of approximately forty years, compel us to require you to put this request, and' the reasons which prompt you to rescind contracts made with you in good faith, in writing. Upon receipt of such a letter, we will promptly write you our final determination in this connection. “Very truly yours, “Vaile & Young.” ³⁹³ “Baltimore, Md., April 28th, 1924. “Be: Hutzler Brothers Buildings. “Yaile & Young, “Bush and Bidgely Streets, “Baltimore, Maryland. ■“Gentlemen: “We acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 26th, requesting that we confirm to you in writing our verbal instructions to discontinue shop work now being done under your contract with us on the Hutzler Brothers Buildings. “The reason for this order has to do with the demands of the Building Trades Council of Baltimore. This Council is composed of all the unions allied with the building trades except the carpenters and bricklayers. “During the latter part of March, the representatives of this Council called upon us and advised us that they would not permit any of their members to work on this building with non-union men-. They made special reference to Yaile & Young. “We refused to consider their demands.

On account of this refusal, a strike was called on the building on April 10th, which lasted until April 25th. “Through the efforts of our client, Mr. Hutzler, a conference was called between the Council representatives and our firm on April 24th. The result of this conference was an agreement as follows: “1. Work to be resumed by the striking union men on the following day. “2. Work to be temporarily stopped in your shop pending your decision as to whether you will close your shop. “3.

If you decide not to close your shop, your contract to be rescinded by us, and awarded to some firm employing union labor. “In accordance therewith, we are hereby requesting that you suspend all work now being done under your contract, pending your decision on the matter of closing your shop to only union employees. As soon as you have made this decision, kindly advise us. ³⁹⁴ “In making this request, may we assure you o£ our regret that the present conditions governing labor made it impossible for us to take any other course than this. We are firm in the belief that to have resisted the demands of the unions any longer would not have accomplished a solution to your problem. Our contract was made with yon in good faith also, and this action implies no lack of our confidence in your firm, whatever.

We are simply the victim of circumstances over which we have no control. “Yours very truly, “Benjamin E. Bennett Building Company. “(Sgd.) B. Erank Bennett.” That in January, 1924, ‘plaintiffs were awarded contracts amounting to $15,400 by the M. A. Longi Company of Baltimore, a general contracting firm, in connection with a building about to he erected by said company for the Johns Hopkins University; that by reason of the refusal of plaintiffs to unionize their shop and conduct the same .as a “closed shop” all of the defendants, except the Bennett Company, have entered into a combination and conspiracy to unlawfully coerce and threaten various'persons, firms and corporations with whom plaintiffs are doing business, and have been doing business for a long time, and1 particularly the Bennett Company and the ÍJ. A. Long! Company not only to refuse to make new contracts with plaintiffs, hut to violate contracts already made,” that defendants proceeded to' carry out said unlawful combination and conspiracy by calling upon practically all of the persons, firms and corporations engaged in the general contracting business in Baltimore City, and persons, firms and corporations desiring to build new buildings and improve old ones, with whom plaintiffs, had been doing business and threatening to c'all strikes of all union men employed upon buildings upon which such contractors and such persons, firms and corporations were doing work, in the event they should enter into any contractual relation with plaintiffs, or employed therein to work upon any buildings, no matter where located, including! buildings upon which ³⁹⁵ plaintiffs are not working) and have no oontr'aets to do any work; that by reason thereof, and by reason of threats of boycotts, the said Bennett Company and the said M. A. Long Company and said other firms and corporations, have been coerced and intimidated to such .an extent that they have refused to make any new contracts with plaintiffs, and have cancelled or are about to cancel contracts already made; that the question involved is not -one of mere dollars, but is a. matter of the life or death of the business and business career of plaintiffs for the loss of which no damages will compensate ; and that they are being utterly destroyed by the unlawful -acts of defendants and unless they and each of them, except said Bennett Company, are restrained, said coercion and intimidation will continue and result in the ruin of said business and compel the discontinuance thereof, and by reason thereof plaintiffs will suffer great and irreparable injury and damage. There are filed as exhibits, with the bills, the contracts with the Bennett Company and with the M. A. Long Company, the correspondence with the Bennett Company, and the following letter and deposition: “Baltimore, Md., April 23, .1924. “Re: School of Hygiene. “M. A. Long Company, “Horn Building, “Baltimore, Md. “Gentlemen: “We acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 22nd, 1924, which reads as follows : “ ‘We are advised today that the structural steel workers have returned to work on the Hutzler Building.

Therefore the cause of complaint of the Allied Building Trades Council being the same against the Hygiene Building as against the Hutzler job, it is our understanding that you can resume work on this building at once. “ ‘The building foundations are ready for you to proceed with your underground work, ahd we would thank you to start on the same as soon as possible. ³⁹⁶ “ ‘Please advise us immediately if there is any reason why you cannot start.’ “We communicated with the representative of the Building Trades Council and are informed that we cannot proceed with the work outlined above, until you have made a satisfactory settlement. “The reason given by the Allied Building Trades Council for the structural steel workers having returned to work at the Hutzler Bros. Building is that they (structural steel workers) have chosen to ignore the Allied Building Trades Council. “We are very anxious to go on with our work, and note in your paragraph regarding building foundations being ready for us to proceed with our underground work. We cannot, however, proceed under the present conditions, until we are so permitted by the Union. “Very truly yours, “James McOrea & Son, “By Lester W. McOrea.” “State of Maryland, City of Baltimore, to wit: “I hereby certify that on this 1st day of May, 1924, before me, the subscriber, a notary public of the State of Maryland, in and for the City of Baltimore aforesaid, personally appeared M. A. Iiong, President of the M. A. Long Company, and deposes and says: “That he is President of the M. A. Long Company. “That said company is engaged in the general contracting business in the City of Baltimore, State of Maryland, and elsewhere. “That in the course of their business, they are required to sub-contract a great deal of the work which they contract to do. That among such sub-contractors with whom Said company is, and has been doing business since its incorporation, September, 1919, is the firm of Vaile & Young, of the City of Baltimore, State of Maryland, who are engaged in the sheet metal and roofing business. ³⁹⁷ “That the business relations of the M. A. Long Company with said firm of Yaile & Young have been satisfactory, and the work done by the said Yaile & Young satisfactory both to said M. A. Long Company and those by whom said company are employed. “That on or about the 10th day of January, 1924, this deponent, on behalf of his company, secured a contract with the Trustees of the Johns Hopkins University for the construction of a structure known as the ‘School of Hygiene’ to be located at the corner of Wolfe and Monument Streets, in the City of Baltimore, State of Maryland, and that certain sheet metal work was required in the doing of said work.

That deponent, on behalf of said company, received estimates for that portion of the work required in and about said building, and the said Yaile & Young, being the lowest bidders for doing said work, with the consent of their employers, the said Trustees of the Johns Hopkins University, and the architects, Messrs. Archer & Allen, the contract for the doing of such sheet metal work was awarded to said Yaile & Young, amounting to $15,400.00, on the 31st day of January, 1924. “That on or about the 26th day of April, in the year 1924, this deponent was visited at his office in the City- of Baltimore, State of Maryland, corner Guilford Avenue and Layette Street, by a number of gentlemen representing themselves as the Building Trades Council of Baltimore. Those whose names this deponent recollects are as follows: Edward D. Bieritz, Thomas P. O’Rourke, John L. Lawless, a Mr. Duffy, a Mr. Long, and a Mr. Hoff. “There were others whose names this deponent does not recall at this time. “Deponent was informed by said committee that Yaile & Young would not be allowed to work on the School of Hygiene unless deponent was able to compel them to unionize their shop, and that if deponent was not able to get this agreement from them, it would be necessary for deponent to cancel the Yaile & Young contract, in order to get the members of the ³⁹⁸ Building Trades Council to work on this job. Deponent’s- explanation to them was that this contract was cost plus fixed fee.

That the architects and deponent jointly with the building committee of the trustees were using their efforts to keep the cost as low as they consistently could, and sub-contracts were nor. awarded by deponent until they had been submitted tb. the architects, and deponent had procured the approval of the trustees. Therefore deponent was not in a position to take a stand on the Yaile & Young contract, because the trustees and the architects were also parties to the' contract, and as they had chosen Yaile & Young, deponent would have to procure their permission to make any deviation in the contract, and that up to the present time deponent had not received permission or instructions from the architects or the trustees to take any such steps. • :'“Mr. Bierritz then informed deponent, while they had no desire to tie up deponent’s work, they would not allow ’ any 'trades allied with the Building Trades Council to work on the School of Hygiene until deponent had complied with their demands with reference to the firm of Yaile