Court Opinion

ID: 9418960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:43:54.835723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:00.368009
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Butler,
dissenting.
The opinion just announced reflects faithfully though quite nakedly the findings of fact. These and uncon-tradicted details disclose the circumstantial basis of the suit. Local No. 73 is an unincorporated labor union, never in any way related to respondent. None of its employees is a member of the union; all have definitely rejected the suggestion that they join it. In every legal sense, the union is a stranger both to respondent and its employees. Shortly before petitioners conspired to destroy respondent’s business, one Joyce, of the American Federation of Labor, called by telephone respondent’s vice-president, Russell, at his Chicago office. The latter’s uncontradicted narration of the conversation follows: “Mr. Joyce . . . said We are in Milwaukee and want you fellows to join our Union up there. They tell me up there you are the man I must see, to get a contract signed for Shinner & Company with the Butchers Union up there.’ I told him I could not sign any contract with him, that our men had their own association and were perfectly well satisfied, and didn’t want to belong to any other union. He said Well, I am going there tonight *332and if you don’t join, I will declare war on you.’ I said ‘There is nothing I can do about it.’ He said ‘All right, the war is on, and may the best man win,’ and he hung up.”
Then followed a demand by the union that respondent compel its employees, on pain of dismissal from their employment, to join the union and constitute it their bargaining representative and agent. Respondent rightly declined to undertake any such interference with the liberty of its employees, but informed them that they were free to do as they saw fit. It left them wholly free to join or not to join the union; the union was left free to invite, urge, persuade or induce them to join. Every one who respects the lawful exercise of individual liberty of action must regard the attitude of the respondent as being above criticism and beyond reproach. The opinion of the Court just announced does not suggest a contrary view.
Under these circumstances, the union, in order to force respondent to coerce its employees, and in pursuance of a conspiracy to that end, publicly and falsely accused respondent of being unfair to labor in dealing with its employees; and by means of false placards and banners and by picketing, molestation, annoyance; threats and intimidation it prevented, and when this suit was brought was continuing to prevent, patrons and prospective patrons from dealing with respondent—all to the latter’s serious and irreparable injury.
1. Respondent’s business constitutes a property right; and the free opportunity of respondent and its customers to deal with one another in that business is an incident inseparable therefrom. It is hard to imagine a case which more clearly calls for equitable relief; and the court below rightly granted an injunction. Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312, 327, and cases cited.
*333But here it is held that the decree conflicts with the Norris-LaGuardia Act. That the action demanded by petitioners of respondent with respect to its employees, if taken, would have been morally indefensible is plain; that it would have been against the declared policy of the Act is equally plain. That Act, 29 U. S. C., § 102,1 declares that under prevailing conditions, the individual unorganized worker, “though he should be free to decline to associate with his fellow workers” should “have full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of his own choosing,” and should “be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives,” etc. This declaration of policy, as the introductory clause plainly recites, was intended as an *334aid “in the interpretation” of the Act and “in determining the jurisdiction and authority of the courts” under the Act. If respondent had joined the conspiracy and yielded to the demand of the union its action as an employer of labor unquestionably would have constituted an “interference, restraint, or coercion” of its employees in the designation of their representatives, in the teeth of the declared policy of the Act.
The opinion of the Court asserts, however, that this definite declaration of policy in no way narrows the definition of the phrase “labor dispute” found in substantive provisions of the Act. But that statement cannot be intended to suggest that the declaration of policy does not affect the meaning and application of the words used, for the opening clause of that declaration is precisely to the contrary. Whether a labor dispute exists in a given case depends upon the facts; and in each case the phrase “labor dispute” is to be interpreted in harmony with the declared policy of the Act. That is the congressional mandate and courts are required to observe it. In Ozawa v. United States, 260 U. S. 178, 194, we said “It is the duty of this Court to give effect to the intent of Congress. Primarily this intent is ascertained by giving the words their natural significance, but if this leads to an unreasonable result plainly at variance with the policy of the legislation as a whole, we must examine the matter further. We may then look to the reason of the enactment and inquire into its antecedent history and give it effect in accordance with its design and purpose, sacrificing, if necessary, the literal meaning in order that the purpose may not fail.” See also to the same effect, Heydenfeldt v. Daney Gold & S. M. Co., 93 U. S. 634, 638; Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457, 459 et seq.; Fleischmann Construction Co. v. United States, 270 U. S. 349, 360; Karnuth v. United States, 279 U. S. 231, 243. The principle applies here with peculiar force; *335for it is an unnatural assumption to suppose that Congress intended by general definition of the flexible term “labor dispute” to annul its own very explicit declaration in respect to the policy to be observed by the courts in the administration of the Act.
The decision just announced ignores the declared policy of Congress that the worker should be free to decline association with his fellows, that he should have full freedom in that respect and in the designation of representatives, and especially that he should be free from interference, restraint, or coercion of employers. To say that a “labor dispute” is created by the mere refusal of respondent to comply with the demand that it compel its employees to designate the union as their representative unmistakably subverts this policy and consequently puts a construction upon the words contrary to the manifest congressional intent.
Moreover, the immediately preceding section of the Act, 29 U. S. C., § 101,2 provides that no restraining order or injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute shall issue “contrary to the public policy declared in this chapter.” Sections 101 and 102 taken, together constitute nothing less than an expression of the legislative will that the court shall enforce the public policy set forth in § 102 and shall have regard thereto in reaching a determination as to whether it has jurisdiction to issue an injunction in any particular case. Since the *336whole aim of the injury here inflicted and threatened to be inflicted by the union was to compel respondent to influence and coerce its employees in the designation of their representatives, the acts of the union were in plain defiance of the declared policy of Congress, and find no support in its substantive provisions.
2. But putting aside the congressional declaration of policy as an indication of meaning, and considering the phrase entirely apart, the facts of this case plainly do not constitute a “labor dispute” as defined by the Act. Undoubtedly “dispute” is used in its primary sense as meaning a verbal controversy involving an expression of opposing views or claims. The Act itself, 29 U. S. C., § 113 (c), so regards it: “The term labor dispute’ includes any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment,” etc. In this case, there was no interchange or consideration of conflicting views in respect of the settlement of a controversial problem. There was simply an overbearing demand by the union that respondent should do an unlawful thing and a natural refusal on its part to comply. If a demand by a labor union that an employer compel its employees to submit to the will of the union, and the employer’s refusal, constitute a labor controversy, the highwayman’s demand for the money of his victim and the latter’s refusal to stand and deliver constitute a financial controversy.
There being an utter lack of connection between the petitioners and respondent or its employees, the union was an intruder into the affairs of the employer and its employees. The union had the right to try to persuade the employees to join its organization; but persuasive methods failing, its right under the law in any manner to intermeddle came to an end. It lawfully could not coerce the employees to abandon their own organization and to join Local No. 73 any more than the employees could coerce the union to disband and its members to join *337their organization. Otherwise, the worker would' not “be free,” as the Act requires, “to decline to associate with his fellows”; nor would he have “full freedom of association, self-organization and designation of representatives of his own choosing.” Clearly the union could not be authorized by statute to resort to coercive measures directly against the employees to compel submission to its wishes, for that would be to give one group of workmen autocratic power of control in respect of the liberties of another group, in contravention of the Fifth Amendment as well as of the policy of Congress expressly declared in this Act. And that being true, the attempt to coerce submission through constrained interference of the employer was equally unlawful.
So far as concerns the question here involved, the phrase “labor dispute” is the basic element of the Act. For unless there was such a dispute—that is to say, a “controversy”—the Act does not even purport to limit the district court’s jurisdiction in equity. The phrase must receive a sensible construction in harmony with the congressional intent and policy. There can be no dispute without disputants. Between whom was there a dispute here? There was none between the union and respondent’s employees; for the latter were considered by the union mere pawns to be moved according to the arbitrary will of the union. There was none between respondent and its employees; for they were in full accord. And finally there was none between the union and respondent; for it would be utterly unreasonable to suppose Congress intended that the refusal of a conscientious employer to transgress the express policy of the law should constitute a “labor dispute” having the effect of bringing to naught not only the policy of the law, but the obligation of a court of equity to respect it and to restrain a continuing and destructive assault upon the property rights of the employer, as to which no adequate remedy at law existed.
*3383. As to what constitutes a “labor dispute” within the meaning of the Wisconsin statute, the interpretation put upon it by the highest court of that state is binding here. Knights of Pythias v. Meyer, 265 U. S. 30, 32. Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 U. S. 587, 609. But this Court authoritatively declares the meaning of Acts of Congress and is required to decide for itself what constitutes a “labor dispute,” which, within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, will have the effect of abridging the jurisdiction of a federal court.
The things here found to have been done for the purpose of coercing respondent to compel its employees to join the union are not declared lawful by the Wisconsin statute or by the courts of that state. Cf. American Furniture Co. v. Chauffeurs, T. & H. Union, 222 Wis. 338; 268 N. W. 250; Senn v. Tile Layers Protective Union, 222 Wis. 383; 268 N. W. 270, 872. While this Court refrains from condemning the means employed by petitioners, the opinion contains nothing to suggest that their conduct was not wrongful and unlawful. The publicity and peaceful picketing declared legal by Wisconsin laws are utterly unlike the display of libelous signs, parade of pickets, false accusations, molestation, threats and intimidation employed by the union, not on behalf of former or present employees of respondent, but to destroy the business of respondent. Here, by means everywhere held to be unlawful, the union carried on and was continuing to carry on a campaign of destruction in order to coerce respondent to deprive its employees of their right of freedom of association, self-organization and designation of representatives of their own choosing. That the Wisconsin statute does not attempt to make lawful the means employed by the union to impose its will upon respondent and its employees clearly appears from this Court’s portrayal of that law in Senn v. Tile Layers Union, 301 U. S. 468.
*339The opinion in that case states (p. 478): “The judgment of the highest court of the state establishes that both the means employed and the end sought by the unions are legal under its law . . . The Legislature of Wisconsin has declared that ‘peaceful picketing and patrolling’ on the public streets and places shall be permissible ‘whether engaged in singly or in numbers’ provided this is done ‘without intimidation or coercion’ and free from ‘fraud, violence, breach of the peace or threat thereof.’ The statute provides that the picketing must be peaceful; and that term as used implies not only absence of violence but absence of any unlawful act. It precludes the intimidation of customers. It precludes any form of physical obstruction or interference with the plaintiff’s business. It authorizes giving publicity to the existence of the dispute ‘whether by advertising, patrolling any public streets or places where any person or persons may lawfully be’; but precludes misrepresentation of the facts of the controversy. And it declares that ‘nothing herein shall be construed to legalize a secondary boycott.’ . . . Inherently, the means authorized are clearly unobjectionable. In declaring such picketing permissible Wisconsin has put this means of publicity on a par with advertisements in the press. . . . The picketing was peaceful. The publicity did not involve a misrepresentation of fact; nor was any claim made below that relevant facts were- suppressed.”
The state statute, defining “labor disputes” and declaring the means that lawfully may be used against employers in such controversies, does not purport to make lawful either the end here sought by petitioners or the means they employed to attain it. Their purpose was not unionization of respondent’s employees, for they already belonged to a labor organization of their own choosing. The purpose was to coerce the employees to join a particular organization which they had already repudiated. There *340is nothing in the state or federal statutes that purports to give labor unions or individuals so contriving the status of party to a “labor dispute.” Coercion of employees to surrender their freedom of self-organization is repugnant to both statutes. Wis. Stats., 1937, § 103.51. 29 U. S. C. §§ 101, 102. Cf. American Furniture Co. v. Chauffeurs, T. & H. Union, 222 Wis. 338; 268 N. W. 250; Senn v. Tile Layers Protective Union, 222 Wis. 383; 268 N. W. 270, 872; Senn v. Tile Layers Union, 301 U. S. 468. There is no ground upon which petitioners’ purpose in this case or the means employed to accomplish it can be supported as lawful.
4. The case is -a simple one. Respondent’s employees had no connection with the union, and were unwilling to have any. The union, being unable to persuade the employees to assent to its wishes in that regard, undertook to subjugate them to its will by coercing an unlawful interference with their freedom of action on the part of the employer. If that is a “labor dispute,” destructive of the historical power of equity to intervene, then the Norris-LaGuardia Act attempts to legalize an arbitrary and alien state of affairs wholly at variance with those principles of constitutional liberty by which the exercise of despotic power hitherto has been curbed. And nothing is plainer under our decisions than that if the Act does that, its effect will be to deprive the respondent of its property and business without due process of law, in contravention of the Fifth Amendment. Truax v. Corrigan, supra, 327-328.
I am of opinion that the circuit court of appeals rightly held that this case discloses no “labor dispute” within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act; that the union’s coercive attack upon respondent was unlawful under state law and in violation of the policy declared by the federal statute, and was properly enjoined; and that, there being no “labor dispute” as defined by that Act, its pro*341visions as to allegations, proof, and findings do not apply. I would affirm the judgment.
Mr. Justice McReynolds concurs in this opinion.

 Section 2 of the Act of March 23, 1932, 47 Stat. 70, 29 U. S. C. § 102:
“Public policy in labor matters declared. In the interpretation of this chapter and in determining the jurisdiction and authority of the courts of the United States, as such jurisdiction and authority are defined and limited in this chapter, the public policy of the United States is hereby declared as follows:
“Whereas under prevailing economic conditions, developed with the aid of governmental authority for owners of property to organize in the corporate and other forms of ownership association, the individual unorganized worker is commonly helpless to exercise actual liberty of contract and to protect his freedom of labor, and thereby to obtain acceptable terms and conditions of employment,- wherefore, though he should be free to decline to associate with his fellows, it is necessary that he have full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of his own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of his employment, and that he shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; therefore, the following definitions of and limitations upon the jurisdiction and authority of the courts of the United States are hereby enacted.”

 Section 1 of the Act of March 23, 1932, 47 Stat. 70, 29 U. S. C. §101:
“Issuance of restraining orders and injunctions; limitation; public policy. No court of the United States, as defined in this chapter, shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except in a strict conformity with the provisions of this chapter; nor shall any such restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction be issued contrary to the public policy declared in this chapter.”