Montana labor news., 1938-04-28

JaAANttoh against VtAt DUMMY
Meat Cutters Union; Great
Victory for Organized Labor"
Says Judge Padway.
By A. F. of l.. Weekly News Service.
The right of organized workers to
use picketing as a method to per-
suade recalcitrant employers of the
justice of trade union demands re-
ceived additional support in the de-
cision of the United States Supreme
Court reversing the action of Fed
eral District Judge Ferdinand Gel
ger in enjoining a Milwaukee Local
of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of America
from picketing stores of E. G. Shin
ner & Company of that city, and
the action of the Seventh Circuit
Court Of Appeals in sustaining
Judge Geiger's edict.
Two Justices Dissent
Associate Justices Pierce Butler
and James C. McReynolds dissented
sharply from the decision, their po-
sition Ringing on the question of the
application of the Norris-L aGuardia
Act curling the power of courts to
issue injunctions in labor disputes,
and particularly on the question
whether a Tabor dispute" was in
volved in the picketing incident.
According to the evidence in the
case the union had asked the man.
agement to refuse to employ non
union workers. None of the thirty
five employees of the company were
union members. The management
of the Simmer Company refused to
comply with the union demands, but
said there would be no barrier set
up against the unionization of the
employees. Picketing of the COM
pany's stores by the union followed.
Meaning Of Labor Dispute"
Judge Geiger held that a labor
dispute" within the meaning of the
aGuardia Injunction Act
did not exist in the controversy. He
therefore granted the request of the
company restraining the union from
picketing the company's stores. The
injunction order issued by Judge
Geiger was sustained by the Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals of Wis
consin.
The decision of the Supreme
Court, in an opinion by Associate
Justice Owen j. Roberts, reversed
these two rulings. In his opinion
Justice Roberts criticized Judge Gel
ger for the sweeping nature of his
decree and the Appeals Court for
unfolding Judge Geiger's order.
Justice Roberts ruled that both
Judge Geiger and the Appeals Court
erred in interpreting the Norris
LaGuardia Act.
Appeals Court Erred
'"The Court of Appeals erred" he
declared, lin holding that the declar-
ations of policy in the Norris-La-
Guardia Act and the Wisconsin labor
code to the effect that employees
are to have full freedom of %associa-
ton, self-organization and deter
mination of representatives Of their
own choosing, free from Interior
ence, restraint or coercion Of their
employers, puts this case outside the
scope of both acts, since the re-
spondent cannot accede to the petit
ton demands upon it without dis
regarding the policy declared by the
statutes.
I'VE find nothing in the declara-
tons of policy which narrows the
definition of a labor dispute as
found in the statutes. The rights of
the parties and the jurisdiction of
the Federal courts are to be deter
mined according to the express pro-
visions applicable to labor disputes
as so defined"
Judge Padway Halls Decision AS
Benefit to Labor
The decision of the Supreme Court
was hailed by Joseph A. Padway,
counsel of the American Federation
of Labor, as a definite advance for
the legal rights of trade unions in
the use of picketing.
'The decision of the United States
Supreme Court in the case of Lauf
v. Simmer is a great victory for Or
gained labor" he said. ''The case
interprets the provisions of the
aG uardia Act and declares
that the beneficial provisions of the
Act may be invoked by organized
labor in a dispute between a union
and employer even though the lat
ter's employees are not members of
the union.
various courts of the country
have held that there cannot be a
labor dispute unless employees of a
specific employer are members of
the union. That was the i~nterpreta-
ton placed upon the Clayton Act,
and the Norris-L aGuardia Act was
(T1-+,~.oJ ~ Dare ~