Evening star., 1940-01-13
High Court Asked
To Decide Liability
OF Union in Sit-Down
Apex Cose to Settle
Whether G. |. O. Must Poy
Damages Under Trust Act

Another test of the rights of
labor under the antitrust law was
before the Supreme Court today,
with the Apex Hosiery Co. of Phila-
delphia seeking to determine if a
union which engages in a sit-down
strike is liable for damages under
the Sherman Act.
The issue came to the high court
yesterday when the Apex Co. ap-
pealed from a decision by Federal
Circuit Court at Philadelphia deny
ing damages against the American
Federation of Full-Fashioned Hosi-
cry Workers, . c. I. o. af1hate. :.
The Circuit Court, while ruling
that the union was not subject to
Sherman Act procedure. expressed
belief the organization could be re-
quired to defend a damage action
in IAN appropriate forum"-pre-
sumably State courts.
Federal District Court at Phila-
delphia awarded a Sill 1892 judg-
ment against the union as result
of a seven-week sit-down strike at
the Apex plant in 1887.
Restraint Claimed.
Referring to the Circuit Court
ruling that the labor union could
not be penalized under the anti
trust law, because the evidence
showed no intent to restrain inter-
state commerce, the Apex petition
said:
The evidence, showing a precon-
ceived plan by the union and its Of
flcers to seize and hold the plant
and prevent its manufacturing and
interstate shipments Of finished
merchandise until their demands
were granted, was clear and un-
equivocal proof of an intent to re-
strain interstate commerce"
Apex also contended that the ST.
preme Court, in upholding the
Wagner Labor Act, had ruled that
the stoppage by industrial strike of
the operations of manufacturing
plant which received raw material
from points outside the State and
shipped its finished merchandise to
points outside the State had a di-
rect and immediate effect on inter-
state commerce.
The quantity of shipments af-
fected," the petition added, has
never been held to be the test in
labor combination cases Gas dis
tinguished from monopoly cases)
arising under the Sherman Act, and
the contention of the labor union,
adopted by the Circuit Court. that
the volume affected must be unrea-
sonably large, has been repudiated
and rejected by this court in labor
combination cases."
Price Law Argued.
In another action in the Supreme
Court yesterday attorneys for Flor
ida said the State had acted within
its constitutional rights In passing
q 1885 law requiring that citrus
growers be paid at least the cost Of
producing their product.
o. K. Reaves Of Tampa, counsel
for group of independent Gamers,
replied that the law was unconsti-
tutional and that If his clients had
to obey it they would be put out of
business"
The State appealed from a deci-
sion by a three-judge Federal Court
holding the act unconstitutional and
granting a temporary injunction
against enforcing an order fixing
the price Of grapefruit bought from
growers at q minimum Of 80 cents
per box for the 1938-39 season.
William c. Pierce and Mr.. Reaves
contended for the State that the
law was justified as an emergency.
measure to permit the growers to
survive" and to enable the indus
try to be saved from extinction"
The court displayed great interest
in the views of contending counsel
as to whether there was any longer
a cause for litigation, since the
price-fixing order issued by the
Florida Citrus Commission applied
only to the 1938-39 season.
Mr.. Reaves asserted that "as long
as the statute Is on the books we
are living in fear all the time"