330 U.S. 395 (1947), 6, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America
|Docket Nº:||No. 6|
|Citation:||330 U.S. 395, 67 S.Ct. 775, 91 L.Ed. 973|
|Party Name:||United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America|
|Case Date:||March 10, 1947|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
v. United States
Argued March 8, 1945
Reargued April 29, 30, 1946 and October 15, 16, 1946
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
A group of local manufacturers of and dealers in millwork and patterned lumber and their incorporated trade associations and officials thereof and a group of unincorporated trade unions and their officials or business agents were indicted for conspiracy to violate § 1 of the Sherman Act. The indictment charged that they unlawfully combined and conspired together, successfully, to monopolize unduly a part of interstate commerce in the commodities for the purpose and with the effect of restraining out-of-state manufacturers from shipping and selling the commodities within a certain area and of preventing dealers in that area from freely handling them, and also for the purpose of raising the prices of the commodities; that, to achieve this purpose, a contract was entered into between defendants for a wage scale for members of labor unions working on the articles, combined with a restrictive clause that
no material will be purchased from, and no work will be done on any material or article that has had any operation performed on same by Saw Mills, Mills or Cabinet Shops, or their distributors that do not conform to the rates of wage and working conditions of this agreement;
and that this clause was enforced to the mutual advantage of defendants and to the disadvantage of other manufacturers and of consumers.
1. Conspiracies between employers and employees to restrain interstate commerce violate § 1 of the Sherman Act. Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3, 325 U.S. 797. Pp. 400, 411.
2. The indictment charges a conspiracy forbidden by the Sherman Act. P. 401.
3. On that issue, the power of the trial court is limited by § 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. 70, which applies to all courts of the United States in all matters growing out of labor disputes covered by the Act which may come before them. P. 401.
4. The purpose and effect of § 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act is to relieve organizations, whether of labor or capital, and members of those organizations from liability for damages or imputations of guilt for lawless acts done in labor disputes by some individual officers or members of the organization without clear proof that the organization or member charged with responsibility for the offense actually participated, gave prior authorization, or ratified such acts after actual knowledge of their perpetration. P. 403.
5. The word "organization," as used in the Act, is not restricted to unincorporated entities, but covers generically all organizations that take part in labor disputes, including corporations. P. 403, n. 12.
6. While participants in a conspiracy covered by § 6 are not immunized from responsibility for authorized acts in furtherance of such a conspiracy, they are protected against liability for unauthorized illegal acts of other participants in the conspiracy. P. 404.
7. As used in § 6, "authorization" means something different from corporate criminal responsibility for the acts of officers and agents in the course or scope of employment. Its requirement restricts the responsibility or liability in labor disputes of employer or employee associations, organizations or their members for unlawful acts of the officers or members of those associations or organizations, although such officers or members are acting within the scope of their general authority as such officers or members, to those associations, organizations, or their officers or members who actually participate in the unlawful acts, except upon clear proof that the particular act charged, or acts generally of that type and quality, had been expressly authorized, or necessarily followed from authority granted, by the association or nonparticipating member sought to be charged or was subsequently ratified by such association, organization, or member after actual knowledge of its occurrence. Pp. 406-407.
8. A refusal to instruct the jury to this effect is reversible error -- as to both individuals and organizations and as to both employers and employees -- no matter how clear the evidence may be of participation in the conspiracy, since the defendants are entitled to have the jury instructed in accordance with the standards which Congress has prescribed. Pp. 407-412.
9. Prior to the decision of this Court in Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3, supra, two employer groups, each containing an incorporated trade association and its officers and members, both individual and corporate, demurred to the indictment in this case on the ground that, as the restrictive agreement was directed at the maintenance of proper working conditions, the indictment did not state a crime under the Sherman Act. The demurrer was overruled, and they pleaded nolo contendere. This Court granted certiorari as to them.
Held: in view of the uncertainty existing at the time of their pleas of nolo contendere, as to liability for contracts between groups of employers and groups of employees that restrained interstate commerce, and as to the application of § 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, they should have an opportunity to make defense to the indictment notwithstanding their pleas of nolo contendere. Pp. 411-412.
144 F.2d 546 reversed.
Petitioners were convicted in a Federal District Court of a conspiracy to violate § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 42 F.Supp. 910. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 144 F.2d 546. This Court granted certiorari. 323 U.S. 706-707. Reversed and remanded, p. 412.
REED, J., lead opinion
MR. JUSTICE REED delivered the opinion of the Court.
These are criminal cases in which conviction of various defendants has been obtained in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, and affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, 144 F.2d 546. They were charged with conspiracy to violate the Sherman Act, § 1.1 The parties to the alleged conspiracy were of two groups: on the one hand, local manufacturers of and dealers in the commodities affected and their incorporated trade associations and officials thereof, and, on the other, unincorporated trade unions and their officials or business agents. The indictment charged that the defendants below unlawfully combined and conspired together, successfully, to
monopolize unduly a part of interstate commerce in millwork and patterned lumber. The purpose and effect of the conspiracy was alleged to be to restrain out-of-state manufacturers from shipping and selling these commodities within the San Francisco Bay area of California, and to prevent the dealers in that area from freely handling them. It was alleged that the conspiracy also sought to raise the prices of the products [67 S.Ct. 778] affected. To achieve the purpose, a contract was entered into between the defendants for a wage scale for members of labor unions working on the articles involved, combined with a restrictive clause,
. . . no material will be purchased from, and no work will be done on any material or article that has had any operation performed on same by Saw Mills, Mills, or Cabinet Shops, or their distributors that do not conform to the rates of wage and working conditions of this agreement,
with specified exceptions not here material. This clause, it is alleged, was enforced to the mutual advantage of the conspirators by some of the parties through conference or picketing or acquiescence in the arrangement. By means of the conspiracy, union workmen obtained better wages, the employers higher profits, and manufacturers against whom the conspiracy was directed were largely prevented from sharing in the Bay Area business, all to the price disadvantage of the consumer and the unreasonable restraint of interstate commerce. The legal theory which was followed in their conviction was that conspiracies between employers and employees to restrain interstate commerce violate the Sherman Act.
Five petitions for certiorari were presented to this Court by different defendants, either singly or jointly with others. It is sufficient for the purposes of this review to say that they raised the question of the application of § 1 of the Sherman Act to conspiracies between employers and employees to restrain commerce and, except the petitions in the employer group, the application of § 6 of the
Norris-LaGuardia Act in trial of such an indictment.2 On account of the importance of the federal questions raised and asserted conflicts in the circuits, the writs of certiorari were granted.3
Since these cases were taken, the important question of the application of the Sherman Act to a conspiracy between labor union and business groups has been decided by us. We held that such a conspiracy to restrain trade violated the Sherman Act. Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3, 325 U.S. 797. This holding causes us to approve the ruling of the trial and appellate courts on the first question presented by the certiorari, but it left unresolved the question as to the application of § 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the point to which this decision is directed.
The indictment charges a conspiracy forbidden by the Sherman Act. On that issue, the power of the trial court is limited by § 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Note 2, supra. The limitations of that section are upon all courts of the United States in all matters growing out of [67 S.Ct...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP