Mine Workers v. Pennington
381 U.S. 657 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A labor union forfeits its statutory exemption from antitrust laws when it is clearly shown to have agreed with one set of employers to impose a certain wage scale on other bargaining units for the purpose of eliminating competition.
Facts:
- The United Mine Workers of America (UMW) union and a group of large coal operators entered into the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1950 and subsequent amendments.
- Phillips Brothers Coal Company (Phillips), a small operator, alleged that the UMW and large operators agreed to eliminate smaller companies to control the market and address overproduction.
- As part of the alleged agreement, the UMW agreed not to oppose mechanization and to impose the high wage and royalty terms of the agreement on all operators, including smaller ones like Phillips, regardless of their ability to pay.
- The UMW and large operators also allegedly agreed not to lease coal lands to nonunion operators and not to buy or sell coal from such companies.
- The union and large operators jointly lobbied the Secretary of Labor to establish a high minimum wage under the Walsh-Healey Act for companies selling coal to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), making it difficult for smaller companies to compete.
- The parties also urged the TVA to curtail its spot market purchases, which were a key market for smaller operators.
- Companies in which the UMW had large financial investments allegedly engaged in a collusive price-cutting campaign in the TVA spot market to drive out competitors.
Procedural Posture:
- The trustees of the United Mine Workers of America (UMW) Welfare and Retirement Fund sued Phillips Brothers Coal Company (Phillips) in federal trial court to recover unpaid royalty payments.
- Phillips filed a cross-claim against the UMW, alleging the union conspired with large coal operators to violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Phillips on its cross-claim against the UMW.
- The trial court overruled the UMW's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
- The UMW, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment against the UMW.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 labor union lose its statutory exemption from antitrust liability when it agrees with one group of employers to impose a uniform wage and royalty scale on other employers in the industry for the purpose of eliminating those other employers from the market?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
Yes, a union loses its statutory exemption from antitrust liability under these circumstances. While a union acting alone may seek uniform wages from all employers as a matter of its own policy, it forfeits its exemption when it agrees with one group of employers to impose a wage scale on another bargaining unit. Such an agreement constitutes a conspiracy to eliminate competitors, which is not shielded by labor laws because the union is no longer acting in its own self-interest but has combined with a non-labor group to restrain trade. However, the Court also held that joint efforts to influence public officials (lobbying), such as the approaches to the Secretary of Labor and the TVA, are protected under the Noerr doctrine and cannot form the basis of an antitrust violation, regardless of any anticompetitive intent. Because the trial court improperly instructed the jury that this lobbying could be part of an illegal conspiracy, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, the union's alleged conduct falls outside the labor exemption. This opinion reaffirms the principles of Allen Bradley Co. v. Union, stating that an industry-wide collective bargaining agreement made with the purpose of forcing some employers out of business is a violation of the antitrust laws. A business monopoly is no less a monopoly because a union participates in its creation. When organized labor joins with organized business to drive marginal operators out of existence, it is a violation of the Sherman Act, as Congress did not delegate the power to remold the free enterprise system to private groups.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical boundary for the statutory labor exemption from antitrust laws. It clarifies that while unions have broad latitude to pursue their own goals unilaterally, they lose their immunity when they conspire with one employer group to impose anticompetitive conditions on another. The case creates a significant precedent by distinguishing between a union's legitimate, albeit potentially harmful, unilateral wage policy and an illegal conspiracy with employers to eliminate competition. Furthermore, along with the companion Noerr case, it solidifies the doctrine that joint petitioning of the government is immune from antitrust liability, separating anticompetitive actions in the marketplace from anticompetitive lobbying in the political arena.
Unlock the full brief for Mine Workers v. Pennington