Opinion ID: 339800
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Labor/Antitrust

Text: 23 While the paths of antitrust and the Shipping Act policies have sometimes diverged, those of labor and antitrust have consistently collided head-on. In the early years of this century, attempts to organize labor were frequently defeated in the legal forum by application of antitrust laws. See, e.g., Bedford Cut Stone Co. v. Stone Cutters' Association, 274 U.S. 37, 47 S.Ct. 522, 71 L.Ed. 916 (1927); Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443, 41 S.Ct. 172, 65 L.Ed. 349 (1921); Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274, 28 S.Ct. 301, 52 L.Ed. 488 (1908). This historical animosity resulted from two opposing objectives: antitrust laws sought to promote competition while unions strove to eliminate wage competition through collective bargaining. 15 Congress recognized these objectives and attempted to foster the national objective of collective bargaining 16 by providing a statutory labor exemption in the Clayton Act 17 and by regulating the bargaining process through various provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. 18 In addition the courts have developed a non-statutory labor exemption to the antitrust laws. See Connell Construction Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 100, 421 U.S. 616, 622, 95 S.Ct. 1830, 44 L.Ed.2d 418 (1975). 24 Beginning with Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469, 60 S.Ct. 982, 84 L.Ed. 1311 (1940), the Court held that a violent primary sit-down strike did not violate the Sherman Act. The broad language 19 of the case limiting the Sherman Act's scope as to price effects of labor negotiations was gradually disavowed, however, as the Court evolved an ad hoc definition for this non-statutory exemption. 25 Although union picketing and product boycott within a labor jurisdictional dispute were exempt activities, 20 United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 61 S.Ct. 463, 85 L.Ed. 788 (1941), combining with businessmen to create a geographical monopoly benefitting both labor and management was not protected. Allen Bradley Co. v. Local 3, IBEW, 325 U.S. 797, 65 S.Ct. 1533, 89 L.Ed. 1939 (1945). While the Court assumed that the bargaining agreements in which the union persuaded employers not to buy goods manufactured by employees not members of its local would not have violated the Sherman Act, the union had also joined in a manufacturer/contractor plan to bar all other businessmen from New York in order to charge exaggerated prices. This combination was not within the exemption to the antitrust laws. 26 In 1965 the Court further refined the non-statutory exemption standards. The United Mine Workers forfeited their exemption by agreeing with the large mine owners in a multi-employer unit to impose a certain wage scale on small or owners, even though the terms imposed were mandatory bargaining topics. United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 85 S.Ct. 1585, 14 L.Ed.2d 626 (1965). The union (which also had invested in certain mines) had compromised its demands against mechanization and control of working time in order to obtain industry-wide wage increases. The facts showed a pattern of union-owner cooperation to drive small owners out of the coal market. The major defect in the union's behavior was its agreement to impose specified labor standards outside the bargaining unit . . . . For the salient characteristics of such agreements is that the union surrenders its freedom of action with respect to its bargaining policy. Id. at 668, 85 S.Ct. at 1592. 27 In a companion case to Pennington, however, the Court upheld a strike-coerced agreement in which the butchers' union obtained the same marketing hours restriction from Jewel Tea Co. that it had negotiated with a multi-employer bargaining group. Local 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen v. Jewel Tea Co., 381 U.S. 676, 85 S.Ct. 1596, 14 L.Ed.2d 640 (1965). Three Justices White, Warren and Brennan stressed the fact that the trial court found no evidence of a conspiracy and that, since butchers would be required for night operations, the union's interest in working hours created a legitimate concern in marketing hours as well. Id. at 692, 85 S.Ct. 1596. Justices Goldberg, Harlan and Stewart agreed with the result in Jewel Tea, but dissented from denial of the exemption in Pennington. For these jurists, national labor policy required an exemption for collective bargaining activity concerning mandatory subjects of bargaining under the Labor Act . . . . Id. at 710, 85 S.Ct. 1596, 1614. Justice Douglas, with whom Justices Black and Clark joined, dissented in Jewel Tea on the grounds that the multi-employer collective bargaining agreement was itself evidence of a conspiracy between labor and management to impose marketing terms on other employers. Id. at 736, 85 S.Ct. 1596. 28 Just last term the Supreme Court again attempted to define with more precision the landmarks by which bargaining parties and lower courts can find their way through the obscurities of the labor/antitrust labyrinth. The Court found that a plumbing and mechanical workers union could not obtain its legitimate goal of organizing as many subcontractors as possible by compelling a stranger 21 general contractor to agree to use only subcontractors hiring the union's members. Connell Construction Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 100, supra. This direct restraint on competition would eliminate competition based on efficiency and was not a natural consequence of elimination of competition over wages and conditions. 22 Id. at 623, 625, 95 S.Ct. 1830. While the general contractor had not argued that the union had conspired with organized subcontractors, the Court did observe that a most favored nation clause in the multi-employer bargaining agreement enhanc(ed) the restraint of trade. Id. at 625 n.2, 95 S.Ct. 1830. It thus appears that the Court has dispensed with the requirement of conspiracy for subjecting union activity to antitrust litigation, 23 at least outside employer-employee bargaining. See also 61 Cornell L.Rev. 436, 448 n.63 (1976); 50 Tulane L.Rev. 418, 426 (1976).