The San Francisco call., 1904-12-31
TRADES COUNCIL
FACES BIG SUIT
Lumber Company Brings
Boycotting War to Supe-
rior Court for Adjudication
CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY
Mill Owners Association Co.
Defendant in Action for
Damages and Injunction

| Four years Of warfare between the
unionized building trades and the
Union Lumber Company-a fight far
reaching in effect and methodical in it's
conduct between organized labor and
an industrial corporation, that has
been talked about and written about
all over the land-has at last been
brought to a court of equity for settle
ment. The complaint was filed yester-
day and assigned to Judge Sloss' de-
partment. 1t is more specific in it's al
| legations and more particular in its de-
/ mands for relief than have been any
| of the numerous suits against labor
unions that have yet been filed and
| tried.
The Union Lumber Company, operat-
| ing lumber yards at Sixth and Channel
streets in this city and at Fort Bragg.
is the plaintiff Bush Finnell of the
Citizens Alliance is it's attorney, and
C. E. Wilson is of counsel A perpetual
injunction and damages in the sum of
| 100000 are asked, and a mere naming
Of the defendants bespeaks the impor-
tance of the action. A central labor
body, an association of owners and va
rious unions and individuals are put
on the defensive, the list including the
! following: The Building Trades Coun-
Gil. the San Francisco Planning Mill
Owners Association, the District Coun-
Gil Of Carpenters, Millmen's Union
Local No. 422, Millmen's Union Local
423. the forty-eight officers of these or
! ganizations, headed by P. H. McCar-
thy and fifty Does" supposed to rep
resent the unknown membership.
! In October 1900. the Union Lumber
Company withdrew from the Mill Own
ers' Association. and six weeks later
the association entered into an agree
ment with the Building Trades Coun-
ell to operate their plants under union
rules. The Union Lumber Company
refused to concur and has been running
an open shop ever since. This is the
basis of the trouble.
COMPLAINT IS LONG.
The complaint contains forty-fve
typewriter pages and in the beginning
Identifies the various defendants.
Speaking of the Building Trades Coun-
Gil, it says that 1t is a secret, volun-
tary, unincorporated association; that
1t receives delegates from the various
unions engaged in the building indus
tries. One of it's functions is, acting on
the initiative of proper local unions, to
determine when boycotts shall be in
stituted It's rules, under the pain of
penalties and forfeitures, are enforced
against the union members and en-
forced against employers by means of
strikes and boycotts. These rules pro-
vide for hours of labor, compensation
for work, selection of employees, re-
striction Of apprentices, etc. This bind
ing together of the unions, declares
the complaint, makes the rules a pow
erful engine If permitted to be en-
forced for the oppression of members,
employers or material men.
The Planning Mill Owners Associa-
tion is declared to be an organization
of persons owning, controlling and op-
Grating the principal planning mills In
this city and the State of California
The State Building Trades Council.
says the complaint, while pretending to
represent the counties of Alameda,
Sacramento, San Joaquin. Santa Clara
and Santa Cruz, is under the control of
| Francisco.
i
plainant says that it was requested to
unionize it's shop, but declined to do
so, leaving the matter to the free
! choice of it's employees and considering
/ the union rules as unreasonable and
/ an infringement upon the personal lib
| critics of the plaintiff and its men. On
| October 20. 1900, certain demands were
made upon the Mill Owners Associa-
! ton by the Building Trades Council
with reference to the number of men
employed and the terms of their en-
! ployment. The plaintiff could not ac-
cuiesce in the proposed subsection of
4 it's business to the Building Trades
/ Council, and withdrew from the asso-
/ citation. When the other members en-
tered into the agreement, 1t is charged,
a conspiracy was entered into to CO.
cree the Union Lumber Company, and
it was agreed to inaugurate boycott
against the concern and all persons
who did business with it.
BOYCOTT INAUGURATED.
1t is alleged that on De-
cember 1, 1900, with the deliber-
ate intent to injure the company. the
boycott designs were begun and have
been carried on ever since. The COM
pany has been declared unfair" here
and at Fort Bragg; it's customers have
received oral and written notices to
desist from patronizing 1t and many,
willing but afraid tosdeal, have with
| drawn their business.