# Brief of Respondent — United Mine Workers v. Pennington > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0181%3A11 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief of Respondent - **Published:** January 1, 1965 - **Citation:** 381 U.S. 657 ## Text ee: o .- : 3 . e - . . ‘ ° : ~ & * * + a / 4 t /- ‘ e . . . . « - . . ee ‘ * ee . ‘ ° . . of . > . . ow ° . . *» . . re e ; ‘ mek, , : ’ . = we . oa * 3 ° . a * . aA ~ e w wv = aig Othos-Supreme Court, us.) * | Bg. FILED. - | ~ | * 4 13 ae es ae : e« R. oe. CL PRK INTHE - SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, ¥ OCTOBER TERM, 1964. Ne O00 ae UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner, - Wer te | | - JAMES M. PENNINGTON, RAYMOND E, PHILLIPS and LILLIAN GOAB PHILLIPS, Admx. of the Estate of Burse Phillips, Deceased, * Respondents. —— On Writ of Certiorari to the United “States Court of — | t > for the Sixth Girewit —_—_— —— — |, BRI EF. of Respondents in: Reply to the Brief of AFL.CIO- as Amicus Curiae, Particularly With-Respéct to the Legislative History’ of the Taft-Hartley Act and’ Con- . gideration by Congress of the Allen Bradley Rule. a =o” JOHN A. ROWNTREE, = 1412 Hamilton Bank Building. ; Knoxville, Tennessee, Attorney for Respondents. ' Sr. Louis Law Printine Co., Inc., 415 N. Eighth Street. CEptral 1-4477 Ais 6 e ee 9 « .- ? Y - ‘TABLE. OF wumnean OF BRIEF. fs _ Page _ Brief + of) Respondents in eas to the Brief of AFL- CIO as Amicus Curiae, Particularly With Respect ~* to,. the’ Legislative! History of the Taft-Hartley. Act ‘ and Consideration by. — of the Alle» Brad- x ley- Rule PPPOE. go Er ET eee TET ELT CLUALLELS, 1, L The Disposition of the Language in ‘Bills De- .- . | signed to Make Specific Changes in the Clay-. "ton and N orris-LaGuardig Exemptions of La- . bor Usiions Under the Antitrust’ Law Shows: : No Intent on the Part of Congress to Change ~ 4@ the Antitrust’ Law ‘as it Existed in 1947 .-.. 2, 8 II. The. Boycott Provisions of the Taft-Hartley * * . Aet Show No Dispositions on. ‘the ty of Congress’ to Change the Antitrust Law’. 8, 11 Conclusion et Perec es A veesecesee Geis 12 is Case Cited. a + Allen Bradley Co. v. IBEW Local 3, 325 U. S. 797. .2,9, 1 1 Miscellaneous Cited. * Hearings” Before the Cuiiaiintes on Labor aia Public _ Welfare, United States Senate, 80th Congress First ‘Session on 8. 55 and S- J. Res. 22 ......... ne ocean ee a Legislative’ ¥ffstory of the Labor Management Rela-. -tions Act; 1947 2.2.2.6... cece reese 11:3) 45,67, 8 | US. Code Congressional Service, 1946, 79th Congress, ; ‘Second . Session. «. 2.00.6. ce06 Se ee Jevexexes’ 4 oe o- ¢ ’ . a" 2 s.¢ ‘ fo. . . ’ - * “a ad . . : . a ’ *. p IN" THE - SUPE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1964, “No, 48, UNITED witne WORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner, — “ “JAMES M.. PENNINGTON, RAYMOND €. PHILLIPS and ; LILLIAN GOAD PHILLIPS, Admx. of the Estate of Burse Phillips, D&@eased, Respondents, > al cca On Writ eae United States Court of er Sane for the Sixth Circuit, ON 44) a " . Of Respondents in-Reply to the Brief of AFL-CIO ‘as Amicus Curiae, Particularly With Respect to the. Legislative History of the Taft-Hartley Act and Con- ' sideration by rs of the Allen Bradley Rule.. - > ‘Since filing the main reply brief Counsel for Respond- ents has had an opportunity to review -the legislative history of the Taft-Hartley Act. The Amicus Curiag brief of AFL-CIO, at pages 23-24, made reference to parts of ») ae =~ ~ this legislative history. The ‘remarks made here supple- ment pages 24-27 of beter main reply brief. We believe thay a thorough analysis of -the legislative history of Taft-Hdrtley strongly indicates absence of in- tent ‘on the part of Congress to weaken or change the anti-trust law and particularly shows no: intent to change the then existing decisions of , the Supreme | Court inter- preting the anti-trust statutes with respect to the position of a labor union under those statutes, including the rule in Allen Bradley Co. v. IBEW Local 3, 325 U. S. 797, which ‘had been decided by the Supreme Court in 1945. The two parts of the bills leading’ up to the Taft- Hartley - Act which touched upon anti-trust law were the language relating: specifically to the Clayton ‘and Norris-LaGuardia exemptions of labor unions from the anti- trust law, and the i pertaining to boycotts. : ‘1. ‘The hinietiiin of the Languagé i in’ Bills Designed to: Make Specific Changes in the Clayton and Norris- LaGuardia Exemptions of Labor Unions Under the Anti-Trust Law Shows No Intent’on the Part of Con- gress to Change the Anti-Trust Law as It Existed in 1947. H. R. 3020, as it canal the House, ‘ananiasia Section 301 (b), reading as follows: ° . — £*(b); Section 6 of the Act enttitled ‘An Act to sup- plement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes,’ approved Octo- ber 15, 1914, as amended, is amended by itserting before the per iod at’the end thereof a colon and the following: ‘Provided, however, That it shall not be . within the legitimate objects of labor organizations or the officers, representatives, or members thereof, to make any contract, or to engage in any combina- > —3— tion or tonspiracy, in restraint of commerce, if one of the purposes or a necessary effect of such contract, combinatjon, or conspiracy is to join or combine with \ any person to fix prices, allocate customers, restrict production, distribution, or competition, or impose re- strictions or conditions, upon the purchase, sale, or use Of ‘atiy product, material, machine, or equipment, or to engage in any concerted activity declared to be unlawful under ‘section 12 of the Nationai Labor Relations Act, as amended.’’’ (Legislative History ‘of the Labor Management Relations Act 1947, U: S. Government Printing Office, 1948, Vol. 1, pp. 220-221.) The above language extends beyond the Allen Bradley situation where a labor union conspires with business groups to aid such groups in restraining and monopolizing trade. The House Report No, 245 on H. Ry 3020 stated: ‘Section 301 contains the amendments to the Clay- ton Act that were® included in the Case Bill of last year, and which at that time passed the House by an overwhelming majority.’’ (Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, supra, p. 336.) | The Case Bill had been broadly interpreted to extend beyond the Allen Bradley type of conspiracy. When the President vetoed the Case Bill his message stated: “Section 11. This provision subjects various union activities to the anti-trust laws with all their criminal sanctions, ‘injunctive’ remedies, and ‘provisions for treble damages. Although the section is entitled “Secondary boycotts,’ the scope of the section in fact extends fat beyond such matters. While its enactment would provide remedies that might result in the elimination of certain evils, such as improper appli- cation of the secondary: boycott, it would also make: those remedies available against recognized legitimate activities of organized labor. | a re $ “That there are.some abuses in this field, no one can gainsay. I deplore the strike or boycott axising . out of a jurisdictional dispute as one of the most — serious of such abuses. A way ‘must be found to prevent the jurisdictional strike. It cannot be justi- ‘fied under any circumstaices. | am convinced, how- ever, that the anti-trust laws, the objectives of whieh are the elimination of, untair business practices and ‘the protection of free competition, are not designed to solve the abuses - -pointed out in this section. ° ‘‘In this regard, however, I do not need to emphasize the necessity of applying the anti-trust laws to com- ‘binations between onginyes ‘and- jabor* designed : restrain competition.”’ (Emphasis added.) (U. Code Congressional Service, 1946, 79th Congress, Se -ond Session, page 1691.) -That the rejection ot the foregoing language by Con- ink gress was attributable to the fact that it extended beyond ‘the Allen Bradley type of ‘conspiracy, is indicated | in the - Hoyse Minority Report No. 245, on H. R. 3020, where ; the minority reported: ° X ‘‘Section 301 of title Il again subjects trade ‘unions to criminal prosecution and treble damage suits un- ‘ der the antitrust laws regardless of whether they are legitimately seeking to preserve union wage rates and ‘standards. Insofar as this section makes it a violation ef the antitrust laws for labor to combine with nonlabor groups:to fix prices, restrict produc- tion, or to control markets it is completely unneces- _ gary. The Supreme Court has répeatedly held that the antitrust laws apply to restraints imposed on commerce by the combination of a union with non- labor groups. But subsection (d) of seétion 301 sweeps within the scope of ‘criminal prosecution ‘any ° concerted activ ity declared, to be unlawful in section - & 12 of the: National Labor Relations Act as amended." Thus, for example, all boycotts as defined in section 2, including refusal to work on or install nonunion- ‘made goods, or a refusal to work on jobs with which the nonunion.employer is connected are subjected to criminal sanctions. a, eS * + + @- eo @ ‘Section 301 would turn the clock back to the perfod before 1914 and would encourage. new indus- | trial - strife.’ -Once again ‘the Danbury Hatters case . and the ‘Duplex and d Bedford Stone case .might- : rs ; come fife prevailing law.”’ (Emphasis added) (Legis-.. = lative History of Labor Managements Relations Acte y 1947, supra, pp. 398-399.) * 3 Ree “The amicus curiae briet-of AFL-CIO ai ~page 24 re- ' ferred to- ‘the above quoted language in the. House Bill but did not make note of the existence of similar language im proposed amendments | to the Senate. Bill. Senate Re- port No. 185 om S. 1126, “Supplemental Views, sought to have added to the Senate Bill a section 303(d) as follows: 5 “«(d) The provisions of sections 6 aid 20 of the Act entitled ‘An Act to supplement ‘existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for. other purposes,’ approved October 15, 1914, and the provisions (except section 7, exclusive of clauses (c) and (e) and sections 11 and 12) of the Act entitled ‘An Act te amend the Judicial Code and to define | and limit the jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity. and for other purposes,’ approved Mareh 23, 1932. shall not be applicable ,in respect of violations of - subsection (a) or in respect of any contract, com-_ bination, or conspiracy, in restraint of commerce, to which a labor organization is a party, if one’ of the purposes of such contract, combination, or conspiracy. is.to fix prices, allocate customers, restrict produc- i) bik me nee van Oe ; oars tion, distribution, or competition, or impose restric; tions or conditions upon the purchase, salé, or ‘use of any material, machines, or equipment.’’ (Legis- lative History of the ‘Labor Management Relations _"e Act, 1947, supra, pages 461-462.) Senator Ball introduced the foregoing fanguage on the ‘Senate floor at page’ 4887 of the.Congressional Record for May 8, 1947. (Legislative History of the Labor Man- agement Relations Act, 1947, supra, pages 1323-1324. y/ The Cunavenionsl Record for May 9, 1947, page 5040, . shows the -following colloquy between ° ‘Senator Ball and . Senator Pepper, Senator Ball’s statement being the first . part of the following quotation: ¢. ‘That language is designed to correct the ‘ater . pretation of the Norris-LaGuardia and Clayton. Acts ‘made by the Supreme Court in the Hutcheson case, and 2 ° a number of other cases brought'by former Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold, when he attempted to break up monopolistic practices on the part of labor / unions, sometimes acting on their own, once in . conspiracy with employers. They were engaging } all kinds’ of price-fixing. They were. attempting to de- termine, on their own’ responsibility, what products should be used in industry, what kind of machines, and - what products the public should be entitled to buy. ‘«Mr. Pepper: Mr. President, will the Senator yield? ‘‘Mr. Ball: I yield. “4 Mir: Pepper: The able Senator says the purpose'o ~ this portion of the amendment is to correct a decision of the United States Supreme Court. What he means is that it is intended to overrule or set aside the hold-. ing of the-United States Supreme Court that the-Clay- ton Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act do not apply - to labor organizations and to permit ‘the application of the Clayton Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act to the acts set out in the words of the amendment. ee = ee *“*Mr, Ball: The Senator can aielen it in any way he desires; whether it: is ‘to correct? or. ‘overrule’, | it means the same thing. There is ib reasoil Why those acts should not be: applicable. ’” . (Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, "supra, page 1354.) The fear that the foregoing proposed amendment was too broad was expressed*by Senator Morse at page 5044 of -) «the Congressional Record for May 9, 1947, as follows: “The language of this section would revive the case of Duplex v. Deering (254 U. S. 443), and the Bedford Cut Stone case (274 U.'S.“87).”’ | ae (Legislative History of the Labor , Management Xs _ Relations Act, 1947, supra, ‘p. — Ana Senator Pepper expressed the same fear at wer 5048 of the Congressional Record as follows: ~ ‘The second point is that the amendment is -de- ~ signed, as the Senator from Minnesota pointed out, to overrule or Correct, as he stated, the ‘decision of the’ United States Supreme Court that the antitrust laws - ‘of the United States are not intended to be applied to labor unions. The Senator from Minnesota is trying to reverse or set aside that decision of the. Supreme Court and to make the antitrust laws applicable to labor unions. I do not believe the Senate wishes to make those two radical departures from ‘either the present law or the present decisions of the ee Court of the United States.’ . (Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, supra, p. 1367.) +4 After the foregoing discussion the proposed amendment was defeated. (Legislative History of the Labor Manage- inent Relations Act, 1947, supra, page 1370.) i) "Senator Taft imtroduced at this point an amendment which finally became law, but which eliminated the amendment of the Clayton and Norris-LaGuardia Acts’ proposed by Senator Ball as set, forth aboye, at page 5060 of °the . Congrfsional Record. Sengtor Taft said — with respect to his” proposed amendment: “This is similar to: the Ball amendment, dealing | with the jurisdictional strik« s and secondary boycotts. . _ It eliminates the injunctive process, the suspension of the Norris-LaGuardia er which. I found was: creat- ing so much difficulty * * * Ay . (Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, supra, page 1370.) The foregoing history of the proposed language in the House and Senate Bills relating to amendment of the ‘Clayton Act or other antitrust statutes, shows no disposi- tion on the part of Congress to change the antitrust laws. Rather it shows conclusively that Congress accepted the law: as. it existed at that time under the decisions of the _ : Supreme Court, including the — Bradley case. Il. The Boycott Provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act Show No Disposition ~ ft. er ad ‘ . ’ t © ans 5 . ; : ° ° oo “@ ,. / ‘a KE) oF > ‘ * ; : , . * , 7. ws . ‘ ” - “ ied . ‘ - 9 ; ’ et, ¢ ay . . . ¢ ., ¥ eS ~ et --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0181%3A11. Public record. Not legal advice.