The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-01-26
CANNOT PUNISH
EMPLOYER FOR
ANTI-UNIONISM
He Can Require an Employee
to Quit a Union, Says
Supreme Court.
KANSAS LABOR LAW
UPSET BY DECISION

WAsurNGroN. Jan. 25.--A decision az
fecting the status Of labor organizl-
lions. which is regarded by many law
gers as second In importance only 10
that in the Danbury hatters' case, was
announced by the United States SUI
preme Court to-day.
Tho opinion holds that statutes ~
many States-in particular the state
OF Kansas--which make 1t mlsd9-
neanor for an employer TO require an
employee to sign an agreement not TO
ioin labor union during tho term ~
his employment are unconstitutional
hocause repugrant to the Fourteenth
Amendment To- the Federal Constitution
as depriying . person ~ his liberty
without due process Of law.
The court reached this conclusion az
ter divided vote. The opinion Of the
court was read by Justice Pitnsy.
Justice Dav and Justice Hughes con-
CURED I'm one dissenting opinion and
Justice Holmes read another
The case was that Of T. T.. Coppage,
plaintiff i'm error, vs. the State of Kan
yas. and was appealed from the Kansas
Supreme Court which held the statute
TO he valid The majority opinion II
the Supreme Court holds that the stat
ute is void. because an employer under
the law would be deprived Of his -iberty
without due process Of law.
IN the present case the employee, "a
man Of full age and understanding,
vas merely required freely to choose
whether he would give up his position
~ employment or would agree TO re-
frain from association with q union 4
employed.
Free From Coercion.
The court held that the cas-. was free
from any element of coercion or undue
influence and that the employer, In select
ing his employees, had merely exercised
the privilege Of determining the ntncss OF
the employee for the service by inquirlrE
into his associations, which he had right
to do in the exercise Of liberty OF con
tract
The majority opinion OF the court fol-
lowed a previous decision handed down 10y
Justice Harlan IN another labor case where
II was held 10 be the constitutional right OF
an employer to dispense with tho services
NJ an employee because of his member
EMP in a labor union, for the same reason
that II ~ the constitutional right OF the
employee to quit the service OF the en-
ployer who employs a non-union man.
Tho majority opinion rcCites that in siN
states Cncluding Kansas In previous
decisionb the same rule had been an
75u--cA and :ha. - . ~" t"rttv " MOI all OF
the States which have mad statutes similar
10 that of the state Of Kansas such stat
utes have been held to he unconstitutional
10. "a. inTIf
Court carefully disclIiincd any decision
that q State may not exert its power to
prevent employers from coercing en-
plOyees or vice versa.
rs IN the Danbury hatters case, the
court simply holds that the law was made
for all classes alike. rich and Door, en-
pioyer and employee, and that a con
ypiricy IN restraint OF trad. under tbs
Sherman law was no less conspiracy u
practiscd by labor organization than II
pract sed by combination Of employers
In this case ID holds that an employer
does not violate the Law by refusing tC
employ union men or by requiring mer
who seek employment with him to agre,
not TO join u union, any more than al
employee violates the law when he quits
his employer because the latter may
choose TO run an open shop or insist tina
his workmeu shall not join the union.
The kansas statute.
The Kansas statute made the alleged
offence a nlisdemeanor. with fine and i'm
prisonment as the penalty. The wore
coercion" was used. but the court hold
that an act may not he coercion slm
ply becauses a body of Legislators choose
to designate it as such in writer
statute.
whether the act denounced be coercion
II to be determined by the circumstances
OF the case. The court holds that stat
ute cannot declare things to be crtmina
which are in truth essentially normal
constituting Uothing more than an limo
cent exercise of personal liberty.
The court holds that under the Four
teenth Nmcndmcn, a state may not strk
down personal liberty or property right
or restrict their normal exercise eNcep
so far az may he incidentally ueCcssar,
for the accomplishment of some para
mount objcc, in promoting the publ
welfare.
The mere restriction of liberty or prop
erty rights cannot be practised by
legislature under the guisc of promotin
tho public welfare and claimed as tn
legitimate exercise Of police power an
thus escape the constitutional amendment
Tho court entered upon a discussion o
labor unions and holds that there is moth
ing u IFS opinion inconsistent with
recognition or tho right Of individuals I
ioin tho uniuns II expressly disclaim
any intention tp question the Legitimate
OF thesr organizations ~ long as the
conform 10 the law of the land as other
are required 20 do.
There Snnot bc one rule of lbert
for the labor Organization or is member
and a different and more restrictive rui
for the employers says the majority G
The court "Frcrdom uf contract in In
worry nature Of q thing can be- enjoyed onl
by being exercised
HEBREW CHARITIES TO GROW.