Document: 381 U.S. 657 85 S.Ct. 1585 14 L.Ed.2d 626 UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner,v.James M. PENNINGTON et al. No. 48. Argued Jan. 27, 1965. Decided June 7, [Syllabus from pages 657-658 intentionally omitted] Harrison Combs, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John A. Rowntree, Knoxville, Tenn., respondents. Theodore J. St. Antoine, American Federation of Labor and Congress Industrial Organizations, as amicus curiae. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion Court. 1 This action began a suit by trustees United Mine Workers America Welfare Retirement Fund against respondents, individually owners Phillips Brothers Coal Company, partnership, seeking to recover some $55,000 in royalty payments alleged be due payable under trust provisions National Bituminous Wage Agreement 1950, amended, September 29, 1952, executed on or about October 1, 1953, reexecuted with amendments 8, 1955, 22, 1956. filed an answer cross claim UMW, alleging both that trustees, UMW certain large coal operators had conspired restrain monopolize interstate commerce violation §§ 2 Sherman Antitrust Act, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. (1958 ed.). Actual damages amount $100,000 were claimed period beginning February 14, 1954, ending December 31, 1958.1 The allegations essentially follows: Prior 1950 between union, severe controversy existed industry, particularly over wages, welfare fund union's efforts control working time its members. Since however, relative peace has all result additional understandings entered into operators. Allegedly parties considered overproduction critical problem industry. agreed solution was elimination smaller companies, larger companies thereby controlling market. More specifically, union abandoned miners, not oppose rapid mechanization mines which would substantially reduce mine employment, help finance such impose terms agreement without regard their ability pay. benefit increased wages productivity mechanization, these increases demanded whether mechanized not. Royalty also, have effective fund's use. upon other steps exclude marketing, production, sale nonunion coal. Thus lease lands operators, 1958 sell buy companies. jointly successfully approached Secretary obtain establishment Walsh-Healey 49 2036, 41 § 35 seq. ed), minimum wage employees contractors selling TVA, being much higher than industries making it difficult small compete TVA term contract At later time, at meeting attended company representatives, urged curtail spot market purchases, substantial portion exempt order. Thereafter four waged destructive collusive price-cutting campaign coal, two West Kentucky Co. subsidiary Nashville Co., those investments position exercise control. 3 complaint survived motions dismiss after five-week trial before jury, verdict returned favor fixed $90,000, trebled court set aside but overruled motion judgment notwithstanding alternative new trial. Court Appeals affirmed. 325 F.2d 804. It ruled liability Act facts this case, instructions adequate found evidence generally sufficient support verdict. We granted certiorari. 377 929, 84 1333, 12 294. reverse remand case proceedings consistent opinion. I. 4 first consider UMW's contention erred denying directed verdict, since determination issue finally resolve controversy. question presented phase is circumstances antitrust laws. think clearly negative correctly denied. 5 laws do bar existence operation labor unions such. Moreover, 20 Clayton 38 738, Norris-LaGuardia 47 70, permit acting alone, engage conduct therein specified violating Act. States v. Hutcheson, 312 219, 61 463, L.Ed. 788; International Hod Carriers Council, 313 539, 839, 1508, affirming per curiam, 37 F.Supp. 191 (D.C.N.D.Ill.1941); Musicians, 318 741, 63 665, 87 1120, 304 (D.C.N.D.Ill.1942). 6 But neither nor expressly deals arrangements agreements employers. Neither section tells us any are barred permitted Hutcheson itself stated: 7 'So long acts self-interest does combine non-labor groups, licit illicit distinguished regarding wisdom unwisdom, rightness wrongness, selfishness unselfishness end particular activities means.' U.S., 232, 466. (Emphasis added.) 8 And Allen Bradley Local Union 3, IBEW, 797, 65 1533, 89 1939, made explicit what been merely qualifying expression held 'when participated combination business men who complete power eliminate competition among themselves prevent others, situation created included exemptions Acts.' Id., 809, 1540. See also Brotherhood Carpenters States, 330 395, 398—400, 67 775, 778, 91 973; Employing Plasterers Assn., 347 186, 190, 74 452, 454, 98 618. Subsequent cases applied doctrine combinations they collective bargaining agreement, supra; see 24 Teamsters, etc., Oliver, 358 283, 296, 79 297, 304, 312, even though mechanism effectuating purpose Adams Dairy Louis 260 46 (C.A.8th Cir. 1958), hours work, Philadelphia Record Manufacturing Photo-Engravers 155 799 (C.A.3d 1946). 9 If order protect scale maintaining employer income, prices required employers happened agree could defend provision if challenged party injured arrangement. Cf. 1939; Borden 308 188, 203—205, 60 182, 191, 181; Lumber Prods. Assn. 144 546, 548 (C.A.9th 1944), aff'd sub nom. 777, Las Vegas Merchant Plumbers 210 732 1954), cert. denied, 348 817, 75 99 645; 175, IBEW 219 431 (C.A.6th 1955), 349 917, 606, 1250. In restraint product direct immediate, type characteristically deemed unreasonable gets promise nothing more concrete hope better come. 10 Likewise, became bidding arrangement designed drive others market, we exemption frivolous best. For reason alone properly 11 A major part Phillips' conspiracy agreed-upon scales smaller, regardless pay represented eliminating them limiting production pre-empting large, unionized urges concerned standards, true lie very heart subject must bargain law contemplates only individual multi-employer unit. Relations Board Truck Drivers Union, 353 87, 94—96, 77 643, 646—647, 676. effect present, results based unit, kind intended proscribe. Apex Hosiery Leader, 310 469, 503—504, 982, 997, 1311; 1958). beyond may conclude unit matter own policy, seek same 13 say resulting union-employer negotiations automatically scrutiny simply because involve compulsory bargaining, form content agreement. Unquestionably Board's demarcation bounds duty great relevance consideration sweep labor's immunity, here harmonizing national policy expressed promoting 'the peaceful settlement industrial disputes subjecting labor-management controversies mediatory influence negotiation,' Fibreboard Paper Corp. Board, 379 203, 211, 398, 403, 233. there limits offer extract name mean reached disregard Intern. Broth. etc. 312; 399—400, 973. said make multiemployer pursuance interests No out limited behavior.2 forfeits when shown one units. One group conspire competitors industry liable becomes conspiracy. scheme undertaking secure conditions employment remaining find anything conflicts conclusion. recognized legitimate aim organization uniformity standards consequence activity differences standards. 503, 1311. indicating free units attempt settle matters entire On contrary, leads quite different obligation members seem best served retained respond each might warrant, strait-jacketed prior favored 16 So far view condition signing majority Range Lines, Inc., N.L.R.B. 139, 147 (1939); Samuel Youlin, 22 879, 885 (1940); Newton Chevrolet, 334, 341 (1941); George P. Pilling & Son 119 32, 1941). obvious interest ensure acceptance demands will adversely affect his competitive position. supra, rejected justification demand. '(A)n cannot lawfully deny right collectively through designated representative appropriate he envisions disadvantages accruing bargaining.' N.L.R.B., 147. Such condition, upheld, extent bargaining. Thus, where refusal insist become until five signed similar contracts, stated '(t)here justify imposition exclusive employer's precedent negotiation employer. To refuse done so lead frustration fundamental encourage practice 341. Permitting insistence likewise restraining avoid impasse surrendering freedom act vis-a-vis employers, something unwilling many instances. Once again, rather regulating relations, limit employees' concerted according views self-interest. sum, provides agreements. 17 hand, employer-union prescribe outside hardly contend, example, demand significantly paid requesting system computing that, im methods costly another. anticompetitive potential obvious, little establish level marginal producers driven presently attack declared possible avowedly discriminatory schemes. 18 From viewpoint moreover, suffer basic defect, predatory intention case. salient characteristic surrenders respect policy. uniform assess probable costs gains strike thus objective should temporarily give way. After bound group. just restraints economic choice discretion run counter See, e.g., Associated Press 326 19, 1416, 1424, 2013; Fashion Originators' Guild Federal Trade Comm'n, 457, 465, 703, 706, 949; Anderson Shipowners 272 359, 364—365, 125, 71 298. 19 relevant policies compel throughout proved, II. next contends erroneously denied errors admission evidence. 21 Eastern R. Presidents Conf. Noerr Motor Freight 365 127, 81 523, 464, base consisting entirely public officials. held, official damaged whom aimed. Furthermore, legality 'was affected had,' id., 140, 531—even 'sole passage enforcement destroy truckers long-distance freight business,' 138, 530. Nothing clearer Court's did illegalize involved. failed take proper account approving approaches officials, applying 'unaccompanied intent further violate statute. illegal inherent vitiates otherwise legal.' F.2d, 817. shields effort officials purpose. Appeals, hold depending proof 23 jury exhibit infirmity. instructed approach legal unless 'unless modify buying driving business.' If, therefore, determined requisite solely episodes, event attribute illegality general plan similarly situated. finding, reasons Joint competition. illegal, either standing broader violative and, given obviously telling nature evidence, lapse mere harmless error.3 There another remanding lower courts. clear collect injury suffered Labor. taken government purchases co-conspirator, instructed, requested, Secretary's determinations.4 Banana Fruit 213 347, 358, 29 511, 513, 53 826; Angle Chicago, Paul, Minneapolis Omaha 151 16—21, 240, 245, 247, 55; Okefenokee Rural Elec. Mem. Florida L. 214 413, 418 (C.A.5th 1954). court, admitted concerning episodes 'whatever bearing overall picture' told final include directly reflected statement reasonably 'that dumping materially operations important * *,' 815, '(t)his prevented 814.5 25 reversed remanded ordered. Reversed remanded. 27 DOUGLAS, BLACK, CLARK agree, concurring. 28 As read Court, reaffirms principles judge: First. industry-wide whereby exceeded financial forcing business, well violated 30 Second. An containing features prima facie violation.* 31 closed shops New York City area. got purchase equipment local manufacturers closed-shop union; confine sales employing Agencies up boycott recalcitrant area manufactured boundaries. said: 32 'The three contractors, manufacturers, highly successful standpoint them. phenomenal growth, multiplying jobs available Local's Wages went up, shortened, electrical soared, decided profit manufacturers.' 800, S.Ct., 1535. 33 I repeat 811, 1540: 34 difficulty drawing legislation primarily aimed trusts monopolies organizations impairing related rights emphasized congressional judicial attempts draw lines permissible prohibited activities. is, line can assurance follow know feared concentrated dominate markets prices. outlaw monopolies. monopoly no less participates, participation (Sherman) Act.' design oligopoly our society, chooses. enforced. Nor hand-in-hand allowed change so-called enterprise system. believed, organized joined hands existence. According used dump low abandon business. needed companies' land operate. allegations, high imposed small, knowledge ones 36 architect Congress. adhering philosophy enforced delegates big remold economy manner charged here. stipulated four-year limitation period, 15b ed.), preceding filing extend 1958, date terminated Unilaterally, so, adopt vigorously implement suspect effectively union. need gear weakest afford maintain charge indirect was, course, indicate sufficiency. course still within province judge admit probative unduly prejudicial, 'established rule testimony subsequent transactions, forming basis suit, nevertheless introduced tends show character transactions scrutiny. Standard Oil 221 46, 47, 502, 510, 55 619. Reading 253 26, 43—44, 40 425, 427, 428, 64 760.' Comm'n Cement Institute, 333 683, 705, 68 793, 805, 92 1010; Heike 227 131, 145, 226, 229, 57 450; Medical 76 U.S.App.D.C. 87—89, 130 233, 250—252 (1942), aff'd. 317 519, 326, 434 (certiorari issues). By contrast, Continental Ore Carbide Carbon Corp., 370 690, 82 1404, wartime purchasing agent appointed Canadian Government proved element damages. agent, wholly owned corporation principal actor complained performed direction agent's parent 'no indication Controller structure approved joint vanadium (the plaintiff) stopped.' 1414. That dissimilar present latter conclusion doubly erroneous virtually conceded, offering respecting bids conspirators claiming exclusion never immediate prospect entering. proffered inadmissible 'It elementary unlawful often formed simultaneous conspirators. Schenck, F. 212, 213, affirmed 249 39 470; Levey Cir., 688, 691. Acceptance competitors, previous invitation participate plan, necessary which, carried out, commerce, Retail Dealers' Association 234 600, 951, 58 1490; Lawlor Loewe, 235 522, 534, 170, 171, 59 341; Column 257 377, 42 114, 66 284; Linseed 262 371, 43 607, 1035.' Interstate Circuit 306 208, 227, 467, 474, 83 610.

Category: 6