Opinion ID: 6933483
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Antitrust Laws and Multiemployer Bargaining

Text: The existence of employer organizations that bargained with unions of employees predated the passage of the Sherman Act in 1890. See Bennett, supra, at 21-22. Indeed, at that time these organizations existed at the national as well as local level. Id. Nevertheless, we find during the 104 succeeding years not a single instance, prior to this very ease, of a union or an individual employee asserting the stark claim that the routine practices of multiemployer bargaining violate the antitrust laws. It is true that recent antitrust challenges in the professional sports industry have at times involved facts very similar to those in the instant matter, see Powell, 930 F.2d 1293; Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 782 F.Supp. 125 (D.D.C.1991); Bridgeman v. National Basketball Ass’n, 675 F.Supp. 960 (D.N.J.1987), but the multiem-ployer bargaining issue appears to have been raised obliquely, if at all. To the extent Congress has focused on the legality of multiemployer collective bargaining, it has always indicated its approval, or at least an assumption of legality. In 1920, Congress sought in the Clayton Act to prevent federal courts from interfering in labor disputes. Although Congress was largely concerned with the effect of such interference on unions, the statute was phrased in an evenhanded fashion to protect employer conduct in labor disputes as well as that of unions. Section 20 thus exempted from federal prohibition “persons ... terminating any relation of employment ... or withholding ... moneys or things of value,” language that would permit multiemployer lockouts. 29 U.S.C. § 52. In 1932, Congress passed the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which barred federal courts from issuing injunctions against firms seeking to join, or remain members of, employer organizations, 29 U.S.C. § 104(b), and used language similar to that of the Clayton Act quoted supra, 29 U.S.C. § 104(c). The definition of persons involved in a labor dispute also recognizes the existence of employer organizations. See 29 U.S.C. § 113(b). See also California State Council of Carpenters v. Associated Gen. Contractors, 648 F.2d 527, 535 (9th Cir.1981) (“[E]ven if the antitrust laws had been interpreted so as to bring multiemployer bargaining units within the scope of the Sherman Act, the statutory exemption found in section 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 104, when read together with section 20 of the Clayton Act, 29 U.S.C. § 52, clearly exempts ‘[bjecoming or remaining a member ... of any employer organization’ from the antitrust laws. 29 U.S.C. § 104(b).” (footnote omitted)). In 1947, Congress refused to limit multiemployer bargaining because it concluded that such bargaining “was a vital factor in the effectuation of the national policy of promoting labor peace through strengthened collective bargaining.” Buffalo Linen, 353 U.S. at 95, 77 S.Ct. at 647 (discussing congressional debate over the Taft-Hartley amendments of 1947). The lack of any antitrust challenge to, or congressional action restricting, multiemployer bargaining, for a century during which it prominently existed, grew, and flourished, strongly suggests some kind of general understanding about the legality of multiem-ployer bargaining that is fundamentally inconsistent with appellants’ claim. The lack of any legal or congressional challenge was certainly not the result of any obscurity regarding the antitrust principles relied upon by the Players. In 1897, the Supreme Court held that an agreement upon prices among competitors violated the Sherman Act. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass’n, 166 U.S. 290, 335, 17 S.Ct. 540, 556-57, 41 L.Ed. 1007 (1897). In 1914, it held joint boycotts illegal. Eastern States, 234 U.S. 600, 34 S.Ct. 951. In 1926, it held that employers who were horizontal competitors for labor were prohibited from agreeing upon terms and conditions of employment. Anderson, 272 U.S. 359, 47 S.Ct. 125. The principles upon which the Players rely, therefore, were well-known and settled early on. Nor was the lack of any such challenge the result of the obscurity of the antitrust laws. Throughout the period from the passage of the Sherman Act until 1941, see United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 61 S.Ct. 463, 85 L.Ed. 788 (1941) (exempting union activity from challenges under the Sherman Act), unions and employers were frequently locked in nationally controversial antitrust litigation. See Robert A. Gorman, Basic Text on Labor Law, Unionization and Collective Bargaining 621-24 (1976). (It might be suggested that unions failed to mount the precise claim at issue here because multiemployer bargaining is voluntary under the labor laws. Bonanno Linen, 454 U.S. at 412, 102 S.Ct. at 725; Council of Carpenters, 648 F.2d at 543-54. However, that fails to explain the lack of any such challenge by a union prior to passage of the Wagner Act in 1935 or by an individual employee thereafter.) Indeed, the only case that directly addresses the issue of the legality of multiem-ployer bargaining under the antitrust laws appears to be California State Council of Carpenters v. Associated General Contractors, 648 F.2d at 543-54. The decision in question was on a petition for rehearing by the defendant employers who claimed that a prior opinion in the matter suggested that multiemployer bargaining violated the antitrust laws. It is noteworthy that no such claim had been asserted by the plaintiff union. The opinion on rehearing disclaimed any such intent and directly held that “although multiemployer bargaining units may affect or restrain competition in the area of wages and working conditions, such restraints will not be considered to violate the antitrust laws.” 648 F.2d at 544. We believe that the history recounted here strongly suggests that Congress never intended that the antitrust laws prohibit multiemployer bargaining with a common union. Congress seemed to assume, and then to act on that assumption in 1947, see Buffalo Linen, 353 U.S. at 95-96, 77 S.Ct. at 647-48, that multiemployer bargaining was both efficient and a necessary counterweight to union power. Such a belief arguably fits within Rule of Reason analysis that permits “ancillary restraints” necessary to a legitimate transaction. See United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 F. 271, 282 (6th Cir.1898), modified, 175 U.S. 211, 20 S.Ct. 96, 44 L.Ed. 136 (1899). Whether as a court we would reach that result if writing on a clean slate is not the issue, however, because whatever doubt might have existed as to Congress’ intent was entirely eliminated by the passage of federal labor laws.