New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-06-19
FIRM SUES TWO UNIONS
Woodworking Concern Brings
Action for Discrimination.
ASKS 100000 DAMAGES
Saws National and Local Bodies
of Carpenters and Joiners
Signed Illegal Agreement.

John Bossert and Charles Y. Bossert' OF
the firm of Louis Bossert & Son, manu-
facturers OF wood trim. began proceedings
I'm the Supreme Court, Kings county yes,
terday to recover 10000 DAMAGES ah's,u
10 have been sustained through an al
legged agreement between the JOINT Dls''I''
council Of New York and Vicinity OF the
United Carpenters and Joiners OF Amer
lea. and the Amalgamated Society OF Gar
pcnters and Joiners OF America. several
employees and the treasurer or the union
are named a defendants.
The plaintiffs, who employ men on the
omen shop plan. assert that the defendant
firms have agreed with the council TO
employ only union members In the max
ing Of wood trim. II is further PROVIDED
I'm tho agreement. the complaint says
that the firms will not handle or sell WOOD
trim made in open shops. except IN GER
tain sizes. The Brotherhood and Joint
District Council, It IS also alleged agree
on their part that except in these sp'cihc
sizes none Of their members VIII install
non-union made material
The following are the defendants spe-
officially named In the complaint. En-
pire Clty-Gerard Company Murray & Hin
Company. Harlem River Lumber ana
Woodworking Company. jamestown Man
tel Company. Meisel- DauOwiz Company.
Niagara Woodworking Company. Levin
Kronbcrg & Co. J. Marcus Woodworking
Company. Batavia and New York Wood
working Company. Wcisenberg Baer Com
many. David W. O'Nen Ernest u. &c
rard. James Murray. Robert I'M. Gcorg"
NJ Turner. j. Levin, Herman Kroncn-
berg. George Stark. James G.. Forbes.
Louis Marx and Michael Marx. copart-
ners doing business under tho firm name
Of T.. Marx & Son. Elbridge II. Neal in
dividually. and as treasurer Of the two
unions.
The present action is the FIRST OF tho
| kind IN which damages have been sought
| in the courts for alleged injury 10 an
open shop firm or open shop firms
through combinations between tho car
penters and a number Of manufacturers
10 employ only union men. though iniunc-
| ton proceedings have al times been insti-
| tutcd The defendants I'm the present
case are given twenty days within which
|
plaintiffs. The latter. the complaint says.
always have employed men on the open
shop system. but have at no time dis
eliminated for or against union or non
union men In employing them.
The suing firm says that through its
agreement with the manufacturers the
carpenters union has been able COM
pletely TO control the use Of wood trim
in New York by calling strikes Of its
members wherever nOn-union wood trim
was used. In order TO reap tho full bene-
| III Of this system. IT IS explained, the
union mills employ spies to trace the de-
| liveres Of open shop material and furnish
their information TO the union. with In
structions TO strike the building where the
sale has been made by the open shop
competitor.
The complaint says that because OF the
alleged acts Of the defendants since July
! /. 1901. the plaintiffs have been deprived Of
| more than 10000 worth OF business In
! wood trim. causing them loss and dam
age Of over $4,000.