Evening star., 1939-11-29
u. 5. Appellate Court
Reverses Verdict in
Apex Hosiery Case
Tribunal Finds No
Attempt by Union to
Restrain Trade
B! the Associated Press.


PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 29.-The
United States Circuit Court of Ap-
peals, in a unanimous opinion, set
aside today lower court jury verdict
which ordered a labor union to pay
the Apex Hosiery Co. $7l1,93255 for
damages resulting from sitdown
strike
However. the court said it had mo
doubt" that the union and its
president" should be compelled in
the appropriate forum to answer in
damages" to the Apex Co.
The verdict was returned here
last April 3 by District Court jury
against Branch l of the American
Federation of Hosiery Workers and
its president, William Leader.
Apex officials had charged viola
ton of the Sherman and Clayton
Antitrust Act. contending inter-
state commerce was hindered when
the strikers were in possession of the
Philadelphia plant - one of the
worlds largest hosiery factories
for seven weeks in the spring of
1887. The union leaders contended
the strike started spontaneously
Order Case Returned.
In its opinion today, the circuit
court ordered the case returned to
the district court and a verdict di-
rected in favor of the union.
ho&1 u Il L,
evidence showed no intent by the
union to restrain commerce.
"On the contrary" the court said
in an opinion written by Judge John
Biggs, jr., their (the union and
LEADER intent was to unionize the
appellee's (Apex) plant. an action
local in motive and local in effect.
"The effect upon interstate COM
merce was merely indirect, Incl
dental and remote"
In its original suit the company
asked a total of $3,515,872, treble
the damages it contended the
strikers caused. Such multiple dam
ages are allowed in convictions
under the Sherman antitrust law.
The court pared the company's
damage claims before the case was
submitted to the jury.
Union Tactics Criticized.
The court explained today that
"the crux of the problem" was
whether the company was entitled
to triple damages under the Clayton
Antitrust Act in a Federal Dis
trict Court cor whether it must seek
relief" IN the State courts of Penn
sylvania.
The union, it was held, was mot
guilty of engaging in a combination
or conspiracy to restrain COM
merce."
Continuing, the Circuit Court crit
lclzed the union for tactics which
it said were "the sit-down strike in
It's most aggravated and illegal
form"
Judicial condemnation of such
tactics cannot be too severe.
The usurpation of the companv,s
rights in its own property and the
demolition of machinery and equip
ment were conducted without inter-
ference by those local authorities
charged with enforcing law and
order in the city of PHILADELPHIA ;"
The court observed that such
strikes Served the cause badly in
deed and the public good fares
worse before such display of law
lessness,' but found the union did
not intend to violate the Federal
antitrust laws.
Small Effect on Commerce.
The court said interruption of
production caused by the strike had
small effect upon interstate COM
merce."
1t observed that for case to come
under the Sherman Act and thus
within the jurisdiction of Federal
courts commerce must not only
be affected but also must be
restrained and restrained into an
unreasonable degree"
Holding that rights of labor unions
were jeopardized, the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, the Amer
ican Civil Liberties Union and the
Labor Law Committee of the Ma
tional Lawyers Guild had joined in
the hosiery unions appeal. They
argued that the antitrust laws did
not apply to labor organizations.
The company replied:
"This case in no way challenges
the right to strike unless that right
be construed to consist of the right
to seize and destroy employers
property In order to enforce de-
mands."