Opinion ID: 293348
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instructions on a Labor Union's Exemption from the Antitrust Laws

Text: 16 The United Mine Workers argue that they were prejudiced by the District Court's failure to give its proffered instruction on a labor union's exemption from the antitrust laws. 8 The District Court gave the following instructions respecting activities of a labor union and their relationship to the antitrust laws: 17 'Now, the law does not make it unlawful for them to combine for the purpose of making a union for the purpose of protecting their rights and for having a bargaining agent, so you are not to consider because the union is composed of a great many miners, all of the miners in this Eastern Kentucky who are members of it, that of itself is not unlawful. The courts have expressly said so. 18 'The law has expressly said so in what is known as the LaGuardia Act that was passed by the Congress. That is not unlawful.' 19 'Then under the national law and under the national policy, the labor laws, as we have produced under what is known as the Labor Act, and the LaGuardia Act and these other Acts of Congress, they were allowed to bargain collectively. They didn't hire one man for so much and another for so much, but the miners and other workers in other industries were allowed to bargain collectively and to select a bargaining agent.' 20 'A union may make wage agreements with a multi-employer bargaining unit and may, in pursuance of its own union's interest, seek to obtain the same terms from other employers; but a union forfeits its exemption from the anti-trust laws when it is clearly shown that it has an agreement with one set of employers to impose a wage scale on the bargaining unit.' 9 21 'One group of employers may not conspire to eliminate competitors from the industry, and the union is liable with the employers if it becomes a party to the conspiracy. 22 'This is true even though the union's part in the scheme is an undertaking to secure the same wages, hours, or other conditions of employment for the remaining employees and employer in the industry. 23 'It is a legitimate aim of any national labor organization to obtain uniformity of labor standards, and it may be a consequence of such union activity to eliminate competition based on difference in such standards. 24 'This, however, does not mean that the union and the employers in one bargaining unit are free to bargain about wages, hours, and working conditions of other bargaining units or to attempt to settle these matters for the entire industry. 25 'The union has a duty to bargain unit by unit in order to best serve its obligations to its members. 26 'The Union should retain the ability to respond to each bargaining situation as the individual circumstances might warrant without being straight-jacketed by some prior agreement with favored employers.' 27 These instructions, portions of which are taken from UMW v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 185 S.Ct. 1585, 14 L.Ed.2d 626 (1965), adequately explained to the jury what types of conduct a labor union may engage in without fear of antitrust violation repercussion. The instructions also advised the jury under what circumstances otherwise lawful union activity would result in an antitrust violation. See generally, Allen Bradley Company v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 325 U.S. 797, 65 S.Ct. 1533, 89 L.Ed. 1969 (1945); United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 61 S.Ct. 463, 85 L.Ed. 788 (1941); Ramsey v. United Mine Workers, supra. The Union complains that the expression 'exemption' was only used once in the instruction. It is interesting to observe that even in UMW's proffered instruction on this subject (see n. 8) the expression 'exemption' was not used. While a party has the right to have his legal claims of defenses stated to the jury by way of instructions, so long as the District Judge accurately states these claims or defenses, there can be no grounds for objection simply because the exact wording or phrasing of the requesting party are not used. 28 The Union contends that the instructions in this case were as fatal as those given in Cedar Crest Hats, Inc. v. United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union, 362 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1966). That suit involved a labor union against whom charges of antitrust violations and unfair labor practices were made. On appeal the union objected to the court's instructions which did not even mention that certain conduct engaged in by a labor union does not fall within the scope of activities violating the antitrust laws. A comparison of the trial court's instruction in that case (appearing at 362 F.2d 322, 325-326) with the instructions given in the instant case, supra, respecting a labor union's conduct in regard to the antitrust laws clearly indicates that the instructions in question on this appeal were both correct and fair.