Evening star., 1947-03-16
Union Boycott Issue
Divides High Court
Minority Says. Ruling Exempts
Labor From Sherman Act
By Gerard D. Reilly.


By Gerard D. Reilly.
Somewhat overshadowed by the 5-4
decision in the foremen's case was an
other sharp division in the Supreme
Court last week on the application OF
the antitrust laws to union boycott.
| This was the appeal of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters from con-
viction of criminal conspiracy with cer-
| tain manufacturers and dealers to Sc
! cure monopoly of the marketing of
millwork and finished lumber in San
| Francisco. In reversing this conviction
and remanding the case for new trial,
the majority relied on an Interpretation
of the Ncrris-La Guardia Act which
Mr. Justice Frankfurter contended rem
ders the Sherman Law sterile SO far
as national labor unions are concerned.
| Since Mr.. Justice Frankfurter was
the author of the opinion in the
Hutcheson case, which originally
granted broad immunities to unions
from antitrust law prosecutions his
criticism OF the majority decision
will undoubtedly focus attention anew
upon legislative proposals now before
Congress with respect to the secondary
boecott For If his view of the case
is correct, the Federal Government is
confronted with new obstacles in seek
ing to increase the supply of cheaper
building materials and reducing the
cost of housing.
While in. the Hutcheson case the
court held that unions could not be
convicted for engaging in nationwide
boycott among their members, or with
other labor organizations, to keep cer-
tain commodities off the market, It
recognized one exception. This was
the situation in which the result was
obtained through unions acting in con-
cert with employers. This warning was
disregarded a few years ago by the
New York local of the Electrical Work.
ers' Union and the Supreme Court in
the subsequent Allen Bradley case held
that the union and it's officers had vio-
lated the Sherman Act.
The scheme adopted by the organized
carpenters in San Francisco bore
close resemblance to the activities of
the New York electricians, for its pur-
pose was to restrain out-of State manu-
facturers of millwork from shipping
and selling their products in the San
Francisco Bay area and to prevent
the dealers in that area from freely
handling them. To achieve this pur-
pose, a master contract was entered
into between the carpenters union and
the local manufacturers association
which not only set a wage scale, but
contained restriction forbidding the
purchase of any material or any work
being done on material produced in
shops which were not governed by the
rates of wages and working condi-
tions specified in the agreement. The
theory of the indictment was that by
means of this arrangement union work.
ers received better wages, the employers
higher profits, but that the out-of-State
manufacturers were largely excluded
from competing for business in the
Bay area to the price disadvantage OF
the consumer. Some Of the manufac-
turers pleaded nolo contendere, but the
union officers stood trial and were found
guilty by jury.
In setting aside the conviction, the
majority of the Supreme Court did
not overrule the Allen Bradley case,
but found error in the trial judges re-
fusal to charge the jury as the de-
PENDANTS had requested. The charge
which the court said should have been
given read as follows:
"You are instructed that no labor
union or organization can be found
guilty in this case for an unlawful
act or acts, if any, of individual officers,
members or agents, unless you ind
upon clear proof from the evidence
that such labor organization actually
participated in, or actually authorized
such unlawful act, if any. or ratified
such an act, if any, after actual knoWl-
edge thereof"
The view of Mr. Justice Reed, who
wrote the majority opinion, was that
since this standard of proof is required
under section 6 of the Norris-La Guardia
Act, the defendants were entitled to
such an instruction. But the trial judge
apparently felt that he had given the
Jurors the substance of this section,
since he had warned them not to con-
vict the officials of the brotherhood un-
less they found conscious participa-
ton" in the illegal acts.
AS the majority holding was thus
limited to a procedural point, the case
on its face would seem to have little
significance But certain aspects of
the matter pointed out in the minority
opinion which was concurred in by
Chief Justice Vinson and Mr.. Justice
Burton, indicate the difficulty under the
new decision of ever convicting unions
for the sillegal acts Of their officers and
agents. The evidence in the case showed
that the locals took no action in OBJ
tanning the Illegal contracts until the
national Office of the brotherhood offered
It's approval. The national president OF
the union then took an active part in
the negotiations, one of his representa-
tives was present when the contract
was signed and after ratification by the
national officers they issued a circular
requesting adherence to the contract by
the members of the local. The reversal
of the conviction under these circum-
stances, according to the minority, will
mean that in future cases conscientious
trial judges will be compelled to tell
juries. that the ordinary law of agency