United States Supreme Court Cases & Opinions

U.S. Supreme Court

Allen Bradley Co. v. Electrical Workers, 325 U.S. 797 (1945)

Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3, International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

No. 702

Argued March 8, 9, 1945

Decided June 18, 1945

325 U.S. 797

Syllabus

1. It is a violation of the Sherman antitrust Act for labor unions and their members, though furthering their own interests as wage earners, to combine with employers and with manufacturers of goods to restrain competition in, and to monopolize the marketing of, such goods in interstate commerce. Pp. 325 U. S. 798, 325 U. S. 810.

2. Congress did not intend by the Clayton Act or the Norris-LaGuardia Act that labor unions could, consistently with the Sherman Act, aid nonlabor groups to create business monopolies and to control the marketing of goods and services. P. 325 U. S. 808.

3. In § 6 of the Clayton Act, which provides that the Sherman Act is not to be so construed as to forbid the "existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations instituted for the purpose of mutual help," "the purpose of mutual help" can not be deemed to extend to activities for the purpose of "employer help" in controlling markets and prices. P. 325 U. S. 808.

4. Whether particular labor union activities violate the Sherman Act may depend upon whether the union acts alone or in combination with business groups. P. 325 U. S. 810.

5. It was the purpose of Congress in the antitrust legislation to outlaw business monopolies; and a business monopoly is no less such because a union participates. P. 325 U. S. 811.

6. The injunction against the union and its agents in this case must be limited so as to enjoin only those prohibited activities which were engaged in in combination with a nonlabor group. P. 325 U. S. 812.

145 F.2d 215, reversed.

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 707, to review a judgment which reversed a judgment for the plaintiffs, 51 F.Supp. 3, in a civil suit to enjoin alleged violations of the Sherman Act and ordered dismissal of the suit.

Page 325 U. S. 798