United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington Local Union No 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters, and Butcher Workmen of North America v. Jewel Tea Company

Citation14 L.Ed.2d 626,381 U.S. 676,85 S.Ct. 1607
Decision Date07 June 1965
Docket NumberNos. 48,AFL-CIO,240,s. 48
PartiesUNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. James M. PENNINGTON et al. LOCAL UNION NO. 189, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS, AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA,, et al., Petitioners, v. JEWEL TEA COMPANY, Inc
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

[Syllabus from pages 676-678 intentionally omitted] Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.

George B. Christensen, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Mr. Justice WHITE announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BRENNAN join.

Like No. 48, United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 85 S.Ct. 1585 decided today, this case presents questions regarding the application of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Anti-trust Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2 (1958 ed.), to activities of labor unions. In particular, it concerns the lawfulness of the following restriction on the operating hours of food store meat departments contained in a collective bargaining agreement executed after joint multi-employer, multiunion negotiations:

'Market operating hours shall be 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, inclusive. No cus- tomer shall be served who comes into the market before or after the hours set forth above.'

This litigation arose out of the 1957 contract negotiations between the representatives of 9,000 Chicago retailers of fresh meat and the seven union petitioners, who are local affiliates of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL—CIO, representing virtually all butchers in the Chicago area. During the 1957 bargaining sessions the employer group presented several requests for union consent to a relaxation of the existing contract restriction on marketing hours for fresh meat, which forbade the sale of meat before 9 a.m. and after 6 p.m. in both service and self-service markets.1 The unions rejected all such suggestions, and their own proposal retaining the marketing-hours restriction was ultimately accepted at the final bargaining session by all but two of the employers, National Tea Co. and Jewel Tea Co. (hereinafter 'Jewel'). Associated Food Retailers of Greater Chicago, a trade association having about 1,000 individual and independent merchants as members and representing some 300 meat dealers in the negotiations, was among those who accepted. Jewel, however, asked the union negotiators to present to their membership, on behalf of it and National Tea, a counter offer that included provision for Friday night operations. At the same time Jewel voiced its belief, as it had midway through the negotiations, that any marketing-hours restriction was illegal. On the recommendation of the union negotiators, the Jewel offer was rejected by the union membership, and a strike was authorized. Under the duress of the strike vote, Jewel decided to sign the contract previously approved by the rest of the industry.

In July 1958 Jewel brought suit against the unions, certain of their officers, Associated, and Charles H. Bromann, Secretary-Treasurer of Associated, seeking invalidation under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act of the contract provision that prohibited night meat market operations. The gist of the complaint was that the defendants and others had conspired together to prevent the retail sale of fresh meat before 9 a.m. and after 6 p.m. As evidence of the conspiracy Jewel relied in part on the events during the 1957 contract negotiations—the acceptance by Associated of the market-hours restriction and the unions' imposition of the restriction on Jewel through a strike threat. Jewel also alleged that it was a part of the conspiracy that the unions would neither permit their members to work at times other than the hours specified nor allow any grocery firm to sell meat, with or without employment of their members, outside those hours; that the members of Associated, which had joined only one of the 1957 employer proposals for extended marketing hours, had agreed among themselves to insist on the inclusion of the marketing-hours limitation in all collective bargaining agreements between the unions and any food store operator; that Associated, its members and officers had agreed with the other defendants that no firm was to be permitted to operate self-service meat markets between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m.; and that the unions, their officers and members had acted as the enforcing agent of the conspiracy.

The complaint stated that in recent years the prepackaged, self-service system of marketing meat had come into vogue, that 174 of Jewel's 196 stores were equipped to vend meat in this manner, and that a butcher need not be on duty in a self-service market at the time meat purchases were actually made. The prohibition of night meat marketing, it was alleged, unlawfully impeded Jewel in the use of its property and adversely affected the general public in that many persons find it inconvenient to shop during the day. An injunction, treble damages and attorney's fees were demanded.

The trial judge held the allegations of the complaint sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss made on the grounds, inter alia, that (a) the alleged restraint was within the exclusive regulatory scope of the National Labor Relations Act and was therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Court and (b) the controversy was within the labor exemption to the antitrust laws. That ruling was sustained on appeal. Jewel Tea Co. v. Local Unions Nos. 189, etc., Amalgamated Meat Cutters, AFL—CIO, 274 F.2d 217 (C.A.7th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 936, 80 S.Ct. 757, 4 L.Ed.2d 747. After trial, however, the District Judge ruled the 'record was devoid of any evidence to support a finding of conspiracy' between Associated and the unions to force the restrictive provision on Jewel. 215 F.Supp. 839, 845. Testing the unions' action standing alone, the trial court found that even in self-service markets removal of the limitation on marketing hours either would inaugurate longer hours and night work for the butchers or would result in butchers' work being done by others unskilled in the trade. Thus, the court concluded, the unions had imposed the marketing-hours limitation to serve their own interests respecting conditions of employment, and such action was clearly within the labor exemption of the Sherman Act established by Hunt v. Crumboch, 325 U.S. 821, 65 S.Ct. 1545, 89 L.Ed. 1954; United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 61 S.Ct. 463, 85 L.Ed. 788; United States v. American Federation of Musicians, 318 U.S. 741, 63 S.Ct. 665, 87 L.Ed. 1120. Alternatively, the District Court ruled that even if this was not the case, the arrangement did not amount to an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act.

The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the complaint as to both the unions and Associated. Without disturbing the District Court's finding that, apart from the contractual provision itself, there was no evidence of conspiracy, the Court of Appeals concluded that a conspiracy in restraint of trade had been shown. The court noted that '(t)he rest of the Industry agreed with the Defendant Local Unions to continue the ban on night operations,' while plaintiff resisted, and concluded that Associated and the unions 'entered into a combination or agreement, which constituted a conspiracy, as charged in the complaint. * * * (w)hether it be called an agreement, a contract or a conspiracy, is immaterial.' 331 F.2d 547, 551.

Similarly, the Court of Appeals did not find it necessary to review the lower court's finding that night marketing would affect either the butchers' working hours or their jurisdiction, for the court held that an employer-union contract respecting working hours would be unlawful. 'One of the proprietary functions is the determination of what days a week and what hours of the day the business will be open to supply its customers. * * * As long as all rights of employees are recognized and duly observed by the employer, including the number of hours per day that any one shall be required to work, any agreement by a labor union, acting in concert with business competitors of the employer, designed to interfere with his operation of a retail business * * * is a violation of the Sherman Act. * * * (T)he furnishing of a place and advantageous hours of employment for the butchers to supply meat to customers are the prerogatives of the employer.' 331 F.2d 547, 549.

We granted certiorari on the unions' petition,2 379 U.S. 813, 85 S.Ct. 66, 3 and now reverse the Court of Appeals.

I.

We must first consider the unions' attack on the appropriateness of the District Court's exercise of jurisdiction, which is encompassed in their contention that this controversy is within the exclusive primary jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. On this point, which is distinct from the unions' argument that the operating-hours restriction is subject to regulation only by the Board and is thus wholly exempt from the antitrust laws, the unions' thesis is that the privotal issue is whether the operating-hours restriction is a 'term or condition of employment' and that the District Court should have held the case on its docket pending a Board Proceeding to resolve that issue, which is said to be peculiarly within the competence of the Board.

'The doctrine of primary jurisdiction * * * applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such a case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its views.' United States v. Western Pac. R. Co., 352...

To continue reading

Request your trial
253 cases
  • Chuy v. Philadelphia Eagles, Civ. A. No. 71-1802.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • January 14, 1976
  • Consolidated Exp., Inc. v. New York Shipping, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • May 11, 1978
    ....... Civ. A. Nos. 76-1645, 77-156. . United States District Court, D. New Jersey. . December ...In the contract adopted in 1959, the union conceded that "any employer shall have the right ...9 See International Wire v. Local 38, 452 F. Supp. 1033 IBEW, 475 F.2d 1078 ... 1253, 12 L.Ed.2d 280 (1964); Sheet Metal Workers, Local 223 v. Atlas Sheet Metal Co., 384 F.2d ...1965); United Mine Workers v. Meadow Creek Coal Co., Inc., 263 F.2d ...Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 85 S.Ct. 1585, 14 L.Ed.2d 626 65) and Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea Co., 381 U.S. 676, 85 ...See United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington . . .          Id., at ... electricity, then by definition Power Company could not interfere with this right."); Turner ... a geographical area of any point in the North Atlantic District described by a 50-mile circle ......
  • Stryjewski v. Local Union No. 830, Brewery and Beer Distributor Drivers, Helpers and Platform Men
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • May 4, 1973
    ....... .' Wortex Mills v. Textile Workers U. of A., 380 Pa. 3, 11, 109 A.2d 815,. 819 ... . . As the United. States Supreme Court stated in United Mine ... distributing Company. . . Two days. later, on January ... law is clear from Amalgamated Food Employees, Local 590. v. Logan Valley ...Textile Workers. Union of America, 369 Pa. 359, 85 A.2d 851 (1952); Phillips. v. ...The. appellant-Union cites Meat Cutters, Local 189 v. Jewel Tea. Co., 381 U.S. ......
  • Burlington Northern Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1987
    ...... is confined to activities that further the union's economic interests in a labor dispute, and that ... some 4,000 miles of track in the northeast United States, east from Buffalo to Maine, and north ... of the responsibilities of the striking workers, and after several weeks the volume of traffic on ... Transportation Union and Its Affiliated Local No. 1121, 625 F.2d 1357 (CA8 1980). Under this ... See also Bedford Co. v. Stone Cutters Assn., 274 U.S. 37, 60, 47 S.Ct. 522, 529, 71 ...1533, 1537-1538, 89 L.Ed. 1939 (1945); Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea Co., 381 U.S. 676, 701-711, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • New York. Practice Text
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library State Antitrust Practice and Statutes (FIFTH). Volume II
    • December 9, 2014
    ...Mfrs., 291 N.Y.S. 610, 613 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1936), aff’d , 296 N.Y.S. 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937); cf. Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea Co., 381 U.S. 676 (1965) (nonstatutory labor exemption to Sherman Act). New York 35-35 14.a.7. Insurance Section 340(2) concerns the applicability of the Act to the ......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Agriculture and Food Handbook
    • January 1, 2019
    ...768 F. Supp. 70 (S.D.N.Y 1991), 104 Liggett & Myers, Inc. v. FTC, 567 F.2d 1273 (4th Cir. 1977), 65 Local Union No. 189 v. Jewel Tea Co., 381 U.S. 676 (1965), 8 1 Lockwood v. ConAgra Foods, 597 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2009), 251, 256, 267 Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274 (1907), 109, 110, ......
  • Agricultural Segments
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Agriculture and Food Handbook
    • January 1, 2019
    ...supermarkets as part of Mutual Strike Assistance Agreement was not a per se Sherman Act viola tion); Local Union No. 189 v. Jewel Tea Co., 381 U.S. 676 (1965) (agreement to restrict meat cutters’ hours fell within labor exception). 306 . ABA SECTION OF ANTITRUST LAW, CATEGORY MANAGEMENT ANT......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Handbook on the Scope of Antitrust Procedural issues
    • January 1, 2015
    ...844 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1988), 203 Local Union No. 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Jewel Tea Co. 381 U.S. 676 (1965), 185, 200, 201 Local Union 257, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Sebastian Elec., 121 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir. 1997), 205 Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT