OCR Text |
Show IIS LOSE IN BOYCOTT CASE Supreme Court Splits, But Gives Majority Decision Against Strikers WASHINGTON. Jan. 4. Labor unions or thlr members are unaccountable unac-countable under anti-trust laws where tb y depart from their "normal and legit I mat ,.. objects ami engage in an actual combination of conspiracy In rertii-.i int of irude," the supreme court held Monday In an opinion, on which it divided, six to three. The court reversed lower court decree. de-cree. dismissing application of the Duplex Printing Press company of Itattle Creek, Mich., for an injunction restraining n. J. Deerlng and William Bramley, ac; buslneuM agents of the International In-ternational Association of Machinists, from continuing a so-c;;lled secondary boycott. This, the court described as "a combination not merely to refrain from dealing with complainant, or to advise or by peaceful means to persuade per-suade complainants' customers to refrain re-frain ( primary boycott), but to exer- i else coercive pressure uion such customers, cus-tomers, actual and prospective. In order, to cause them to withhold or withdraw patronage from complainant complain-ant throiiKh fear of loss or damase to themselveH should they deal with It." in.n vsi; i 1 MuNS. Labor leaders declined to comment oti tr.e J c I.Mori winch :m th" f :rt to le fAvcn on what Samuel Gompers h.Xct described as "labor's bill of rights." Immunity from prosecution was aimed for Die agents of the union under section six of the Clayton a.-t. which sets forth that the "labor o: ;i human 'being la not an article or commodity com-modity of commerce." It also was contended during the lltlgntlon that, under section twenty of the same statute, the courts were restrained from granting Injunctions such as that for which application was made. Justice Pitney who read the opinion opin-ion said: RIGHTS OF l VHixisM, "As to section six. It seems to us its principal importance In this discussion dis-cussion Is for what it does not authorize- and for the limit 11 sets to the Immunity conferred. The section assumes as-sumes the normal objects of a labor organization to bo legitimate and declares de-clares thut nothing in the anti-trust laws shall be cons:rued to forbid the i Xlstenos and operation of such or-Kanl7.atlons or-Kanl7.atlons or to forbid their members mem-bers fr m lawfullj etfrrylng out their j legitimate objects. Hut there Is nothing noth-ing to exempt such an organization br Its members from areoun lability where It, or they, depart from Its legitimate le-gitimate objects and engage in an actual ac-tual combination or conspiracy In re stralnl of trade. And by no fair, or permissible construction can It be taken tak-en as authorizing any activity otherwise other-wise unlawful " i lilil Vis c.l .11 -I II ED With respect to section twenty, the court said: "All of ltj provisions are subject to a general qualification respecting thei nature of the controversy and the par-ties par-ties affected. It Is to be a case be- ! tween un employer and an employe, br between employe re and employes, or between employes Involving oi , crowing out of a dispute concerning terms or conditions of m pluv rui . ; "There is nothing hero to Justify defendants or the organization! the) represent In usdng either threats oi percussion lo bring about strikes, or a cessation of work by employes of complainant's customers or prospective prospec-tive customers and thereby constraining complainant to yield the matter In dispute." After setting forth In detail, ihc scope of the Injunction whirl, the j court held should Issue, the Opinion j awarded the complainant reimburse-1 ments for itll costs In the Supreme : court and in the two lower courts i ; i . m ui s Special fuels should have been considered con-sidered by the court, the dissenting opinion signed by Justices lirandcis, Holmes and Clu.ke. held, adding that these would have shown the acts corn-plained corn-plained of to have been In reajlty u part oi the strike Inaugurated by the union In the principal plant of tho Duplex company. i'ho defendants, these Justices said. were obviously pursuing a COUrge which would lnjur the compii m. but they ' were hot dolnrf It malicious- ly." and thu unions did r.ot Induce any employe to break nls contract o en-j gage In violence. Recounting the history of the case, ! the mlnorltj Justices said there were only four plants uuiklng large printing print-ing pre: : ':t i nd helv. c, n 1 J"' and 1113 the union eetahiishod their demand! de-mand! as lo laboi conditions In three, only the Duplex company holdinn out. A sLrike was called fh. Ire, the otnei iiianutaeturci-s having servi d notice that they could not be held to their , agreement eg long a. an Important competitor stayed out. This strike wai supplemented" by the activities of the union In other places, the ml-horKy ml-horKy contended bu these did not ; constitute a "secondary boycott," |