Coronado Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers
45 S. Ct. 551, 1925 U.S. LEXIS 741, 268 U.S. 295 (1925)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The destruction of property during a local labor dispute constitutes a direct violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act if the intent of the perpetrators is to restrain or control the supply or price of goods moving in interstate commerce.
Facts:
- Bache-Denman Coal Company and its related corporations operated several coal mines in Arkansas with union labor under a contract with United Mine Workers, District No. 21.
- In March 1914, the company's manager, Mr. Bache, decided to terminate the union agreement and operate the mines on a non-union or 'open shop' basis starting in April.
- In preparation for the switch, Bache shut down the mines, hired armed guards from the Burns Detective Agency, and began recruiting non-union workers.
- On April 6, 1914, the day the mines were to reopen, a crowd of union miners confronted the company's guards, assaulted them, and disarmed them, causing the new non-union employees to flee.
- After obtaining a federal court injunction for protection, Bache brought in more non-union workers from out of state and began pumping water out of the mines to resume production.
- Before dawn on July 17, 1914, a large, armed force of union miners from District No. 21 and local unions launched a coordinated attack on the Bache-Denman properties.
- The attack involved a battle in which two company employees were murdered after being captured, and the union force used dynamite and torches to destroy the mining facilities and equipment at multiple sites.
Procedural Posture:
- Bache-Denman Coal Company sued the United Mine Workers of America (International Union), District No. 21, and other unions in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas for damages under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
- The trial court initially sustained a demurrer to the complaint, but the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed this ruling.
- The first trial resulted in a jury verdict of $200,000 for the plaintiffs, which the trial court trebled as required by the Act.
- On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment against the unions.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of error and, in its first decision (259 U.S. 344), reversed the lower courts, finding insufficient evidence of intent to restrain interstate commerce and of the International Union's involvement, and remanded the case for a new trial.
- At the second trial, the District Court judge directed a verdict in favor of all defendants (the unions).
- The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the directed verdict for the defendants.
- The plaintiffs (Bache-Denman) then brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court for a second time on a writ of error.
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 local labor union's violent destruction of a company's mining operations, aimed at stopping the production of non-union coal, constitute a direct restraint on interstate commerce in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act when there is evidence the union's purpose was to prevent that coal from competing in interstate markets?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Taft
Yes, a local union's violent actions constitute a direct restraint on interstate commerce under these circumstances. While the mere reduction in supply from a local strike is ordinarily an indirect obstruction to commerce, it becomes a direct violation of the Anti-Trust Act when the specific intent is to restrain or control the supply or price of a product in interstate markets. In the first trial, the evidence suggested purely local motives. However, new evidence presented in the second trial, including testimony about union leaders' discussions and speeches, substantially showed that the purpose of District No. 21 in destroying the mines was to stop the production of non-union coal to prevent it from being shipped to other states. The union feared this cheaper coal would compete with union-mined coal, reduce prices, and undermine union wage scales in interstate markets. This evidence of specific intent to obstruct interstate competition is sufficient to bring the union's actions within the scope of the Sherman Act. The court found, however, that there was still insufficient evidence to show that the parent International Union participated in or ratified the local district's conspiracy.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'intent' standard for applying the Sherman Antitrust Act to labor union activities. It distinguishes between a local strike that merely has an incidental effect on interstate commerce and one that becomes an illegal conspiracy because its primary purpose is to control supply and prices in the interstate market. The ruling provided a powerful, though fact-dependent, tool for employers to use against unions by framing local labor disputes as federal antitrust violations. This narrowed the scope of labor's antitrust immunity and underscored that motive is a critical element in determining whether a local action constitutes a direct restraint on interstate commerce.
