Bakery Drivers v. Wohl
315 U.S. 769 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state cannot constitutionally prohibit peaceful picketing which publicizes a labor grievance, even if the activity does not constitute a 'labor dispute' under state law, as such expressive activity is protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
Facts:
- Respondents Wohl and Platzman were self-employed peddlers of baked goods who bought products from bakeries and sold them to retailers.
- Neither Wohl nor Platzman employed any assistants, and they worked seven days a week.
- The number of such peddlers had significantly increased after payroll tax laws were enacted, as bakeries encouraged employee-drivers to become independent peddlers to avoid taxes.
- The petitioner union, Bakery & Pastry Drivers & Helpers Local 802, became concerned that this 'peddler system' was undermining the wages, hours, and working conditions it had secured for its members.
- The union asked Wohl and Platzman to either join the union (which required a six-day work week) or hire a union relief driver one day a week.
- After Wohl and Platzman refused both options, the union began peacefully picketing the bakeries that supplied them.
- The pickets carried truthful placards stating that a bakery route driver worked seven days a week and that the union was asking for employment for a relief man for one day.
- A union member also visited a few of Platzman's customers to explain the union's position.
Procedural Posture:
- Wohl and Platzman sued the union and its officers in a New York trial court, seeking to enjoin the picketing.
- The trial court found that no 'labor dispute' existed under New York law and granted a permanent injunction against the union.
- The union, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The union then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, which affirmed the lower court without opinion.
- The union petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted after the New York court certified it had passed upon the federal constitutional question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state court injunction prohibiting a union from peacefully picketing the suppliers and customers of self-employed individuals, in a situation not defined as a 'labor dispute' by state law, violate the union's right to free speech under the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Jackson
Yes. A state cannot enjoin peaceful picketing meant to publicize a labor grievance, as this is a form of communication protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, regardless of whether the situation fits a state's statutory definition of a 'labor dispute.' The state courts incorrectly assumed that the absence of a formal 'labor dispute' meant no constitutional rights were involved. The right to free speech in a labor matter is not contingent on state law definitions. The picketing here was peaceful, truthful, and involved no violence or coercion. Furthermore, the peddlers' business model made it nearly impossible for the union to publicize its legitimate grievances to the public by any other means. There was no 'substantive evil of such magnitude' as to justify the restriction on the union's right to free speech.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The injunction violates the First Amendment under the principles established in Thornhill v. Alabama. A state is not free to define a 'labor dispute' so narrowly that it indirectly prohibits what it cannot prohibit directly: the dissemination of information about a labor controversy through peaceful picketing. New York's law, as applied, does not merely regulate the time, place, or manner of picketing; it carves out a specific enterprise and frees it from all picketing. This is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of discussion guaranteed by the Constitution.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the First Amendment protection for labor picketing established in Thornhill v. Alabama. It clarifies that the right to peacefully publicize a labor-related grievance is a fundamental free speech right, not one that depends on a state's statutory definition of a 'labor dispute.' The ruling limits states' ability to shield certain economic arrangements, such as those involving independent contractors or the self-employed, from public protest and debate. By focusing on the communicative nature of the act rather than the formal employment relationship, the Court broadened the scope of constitutionally protected labor speech.
