The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-09-24
A NUNoUIT ASKED.
The Molders' Union Not Connected With
Laboeufs Grievance.

The Molders' Union Not Connected With
Laboeurs Grievance.
The case of Francis Laboeuf against the
Iron-m0lderS' Union of San Francisco occu-
pied the attention of Judge CARRIER and a jury
all of yesterday.
The plaintiff in his complaint alleges that
in October 1887, he was in the employ of the
Oakland Iron Works and Foundry, and that
in consequence of representations made to
the proprIetors by Frank Dave. an officer
of the union, he was discharged by no fault
of his own; that subsequently, in his ef-
forts TO gain employment at his trade in this
city, he applied for work at the various foun-
dries, but, in consequence Of the continued
representations of the union. lie was refused
a position and had ever since been unable to
gain livelihood at his trade.
LabOeuPs troubles with the union began
in June, 1886, at time when he was himself
union man and foreman Of the Oakland
shop. AT that time strike had been de-
clared against the Union Iron Works in this
city and the firm sent some of its work to be
done in Oakland. The union discovering
this fact ordered Laboeut not to work on the
job; but he, claiming the strike to be lille
gal and unauthorized by the constitution and
bylaws of the society, refused to comply
with the mOders' demands.
In consequence he was summoned to ap-
pear before his union. was found guilty of
breaking its laws and ordered to pay $50 fine
and S24 rs strike tax" He refused TO paw
suspended. His suspension still operates
against him, and by the rules of the union
he cannot work in union shops until he is re-
iDstated Plaintiff, who was the first witness
called 10 the stand. testified to the foregoing
state of facts.
II. T. Scott, Vicc-President and Treas
urrr Of the Union Iron Works, testified that
Leboeuf applied for work to him and he
would have employed him but for tile ''Shop
Committee" which notified him that 1t could
not work with him.
Frank DAVE a member of the Molders'
union, testified that he spoke to the propri-
etors of the Oakland foundry about Laboeuf,
but did so solely on his own responsibility.
Edward Clarke, proprietor Of the Oakland
Foundry, testified that ne discharged Laboeuf
on account of Dawes communication, as
he was afraid all the men would quit work
unless he did so. He could not remember
whether Dave represented the union upon
that occasion or not.
f. G. Cantrell of the National Iron Works
and q. A. Mccormack of the Industrial Iron
Works both acknowledged that LabOsuf
had applied to themffor work, but in cOnse-
quence of their fear that the other men
would strike they did not employ him. Both
said they had not been notified directly not
to employ LabOeuf, but they knew the rules
OF the union and understood what the result
would he ii they did.
After the bylaws and constitution of the
local union and international union had
been identified. w. w. Allen announced the
case for the plaintiff closed.
Mr.. Reddy Immediately moved for nom
suit on various grounds, chiefly that the
test m0ny did not connect the union with
the transaction complained of, and that if
plaintiff had case at all, 1t was against
Dave as an individual To-day was set for
arguing the motion.