Evening star., 1937-01-31
LEGALITY OF "SIT-DOWN''
STRIKE WILL BE TESTED
MICHIGAN Courts to Rule on Whether
Union Members Are Trespassing
by Remaining in Plants.

In the United States the common
law doctrine of conspiracy as applied
to labor unions was vigorously chal-
lenged, although it was used to re-
strain such combinations In the
earliest days and again in the 1860's.
Agitation against State conspiracy
laws resulted in the enactment in
several industrial States in the late
1905 and in the 1870's of laws ex-
pressly legalizing combinations OF
workmen to raise wages or reduce
hours. However, legalization OF unions
was not made general. as in England,
and criminal prosecutions for con-
spiracy continued to be fairly frequent
until about 1890, when they gave way
to Injunction suits and to prosecu-
tions under the Sherman act. While
the legality Of trade unions as such
was not often questioned after that,
the tactics they employed in seeking
to enforce their demands were fire.
auently condemned by the courts.
Shortly after passage Of the Sher-
man act it was invoked to deal labor
q crushing blow.
This grew out Of the famous Dam
bury hatters case, resulting from a
national campaign for q closed shop
by the United .Hatters Of America.
The greater part Of the industry had
been so organized when. in 1902, the
union officials carried their demands
to the Danbury, Conn, firm OF Loewe
& Co. When the company refused TO
accede $50 employees were called out
on strike. A secondary boycott against
the firms products was begun, re-
tailers in different parts Of the country
being urged not to buy Loewe hats
and being threatened with a boycott
Of all their goods by union members
If they did not comply.
Claiming damages, Loewe l. co.
brought suit under the Sherman act
against the officers and members of
the union. The Supreme Court
finally held that the Sherman act
prohibited "any combination what
ever to secure action which essentially
obstructs the free flow Of commerce
between the States, or restricts, IN
that regard the liberty Of a trader to
engage in business" The case was
then sent back to the trial court.
which found the union members and
officers had engaged in such a COM
bination, with the result that they
were finally assessed total Of $780,
600 damages and costs.
But despite the sweeping character
of this victory. there were relatively
few actions Of this nature started,
probably because 10 years or more
was required to terminate them. Ac-
cording to q compilation by Edward
Berman, assistant professor Of eco
nomics at the University Of Illinois.
there had been only five damage suits
of this nature filed up to the end Of
1928, as against SO injunction suits
brought in the Federal courts by pri-
vate parties, and 10 Government suits
for injunctions. Under the Sherman
act only the Government could sue
for an injunction. but this right was
extended by the Clayton act In 1914
to private parties.
Boycotts Protected.
Originally hailed as labor's Magma
Charta," the Clayton act did forbid
the issuance Of injunctions against
peaceful picketing or to prevent q
union from conducting boycott.
Contrary to labor's expectations,
however, the act did not prove guar
antee against use Of injunctions in
labor disputes. A proviso permitting
injunctions to prevent irreparable in
jury to property rights left a wide
loophole and differences of opinion
among judges as to what constituted
peaceful and lawful methods" sane
toned by the act. gave latitude for
forbidding. in such injunctions as
were Issued, acts which labor supposed
had been legally sanctioned.
The failure Of the Clayton act, from
q labor viewpoint, became fully ap-
parent in 1921, when the Supreme
Court decided the Duplex Printing
Press case. In that case q secondary
boycott had been applied by labor after
a strike. The Supreme Court held the
Clayton act was not intended to- legal
ize secondary boycotts and declared
the action Of the union violated the
Sherman act, thereby emitting the
printing press concern to an injunc-
tion against the boycott.
After that decision industrialists
used injunctions freely to break strikes
until finally, in 1882, labor secured
enactment Of the Norris-La Guardia
anti-injunction act. After passage of
this legislation, Federal courts could
not issue an Injunction against strikers
unless it could be shown:
THAT unlawful acts have been
threatened or will be continued un-
less restrained.
2!That substantial and irreparable
injury to complainant's property will
follow.
3-That as to each item Of relief
granted greater injury will be in
fiicted upon complainant by the denial
OF relief than will be inflicted on the
defendants by the granting Of relief.
THAT complainant has no ade-
quate remedy at law.
5-That the public officers charged
with the duty to protect complainant's
property are unable or unwilling to
furnish adequate protection. g.
yellow Dog" Pacts OutIawed.
The status also specifically out
1awed the yellow dog" contracts,
whereby employers exacted promises
from employees not to Join q labor or
~
With these gains and the subse-
quent enactment Of the national labor
relations act (yet to be approved by
the Supreme Court, it seemed that
labor had crossed its hardest hurdles.
Certainly there remained no lingering
doubt as to their right to conduct
lawful strikes and picketing. The
Norris-La Guardia act applies only to
Federal courts, but IL States already
have enacted similar legislation limit
ing the use Of injunctions in strikes.
Thn vaal 80 k~.,~