Plant v. Woods
57 N.E. 1011, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 952, 176 Mass. 492 (1900)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A labor union's intentional infliction of economic harm on non-member workers through organized threats of strikes and boycotts is unlawful when the objective is to coerce them into joining the union, as this purpose is not a legally justifiable form of competition.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs were members of a painters' union affiliated with a national organization based in Lafayette, Indiana, having withdrawn from the defendant union in 1897.
- The defendant union was a rival painters' union affiliated with a national organization based in Baltimore, Maryland.
- In 1898, the defendant union declared all painters not affiliated with its Baltimore headquarters to be 'non-union men' and voted to notify employers of this.
- The defendant union's goal was to compel all members of the plaintiffs' union to join the defendant union.
- Agents of the defendant union visited employers of the plaintiffs, asking the employers to induce the plaintiffs to apply for reinstatement in the defendant union.
- These requests were made with the implied threat that if the plaintiffs did not join the defendant union, employers would face 'trouble in their business,' such as strikes or boycotts.
- In some instances where plaintiffs refused to join, the defendant union initiated strikes at their workplaces, causing them economic harm and pressuring employers to discharge them.
- The defendant union also threatened to leave at least one employer off a 'fair list' if the employer continued to employ the plaintiffs.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, members of the Lafayette-affiliated union, sought an injunction against the defendants, members of the Baltimore-affiliated union, in a Massachusetts trial court.
- The case was referred to a master, who investigated and issued a report with findings of fact.
- Based upon the master's report, the trial court entered a final decree in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The case was then brought before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for review upon a report of the trial court's proceedings.
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's organized campaign to threaten employers with strikes and boycotts, with the object of compelling members of a rival union to join its ranks or be discharged, constitute an unlawful and unjustifiable interference with the rival members' right to work?
Opinions:
Majority - Hammond, J.
Yes. A labor union's organized campaign to threaten employers with strikes and boycotts for the purpose of compelling members of a rival union to join its ranks constitutes an unlawful and unjustifiable interference with the rival members' right to work. The right to dispose of one's labor freely is a legally protected right. While causing economic harm to another can be justified by lawful competition, the defendants' actions were not aimed at competing for better wages or working conditions. Instead, their primary purpose was to coerce the plaintiffs into joining their association through intimidation aimed at employers. This motive lacks legal justification and is therefore considered malicious and unlawful. The court finds this situation analogous to illegal extortion rather than legitimate business competition, as the defendants were not giving employers a fair choice but were compelling them, through threats of strikes, to pressure the plaintiffs against their will.
Dissenting - Holmes, C. J.
No. The defendant union's campaign does not constitute an unlawful interference because its purpose is legally justifiable as a means to a lawful end. While the defendants' actions require justification, the motive here—to strengthen their union—is a legitimate one. Unity of organization is necessary for labor to be effective in its ultimate contests over wages and working conditions. Therefore, employing strikes and boycotts for the preliminary purpose of strengthening the union by increasing its membership is as lawful as using those same tools for the final purpose of negotiating with employers. The immediate goal of organization is a necessary and justifiable means to achieve the lawful, ultimate goal of improving labor's standing.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in American labor law that established a narrow view of permissible union activity, privileging an individual's right to work free from coercion over a union's collective right to organize for strength. By creating a distinction between justifiable acts (like striking for wages) and unjustifiable ones (like striking to force union membership), the court significantly limited the tools unions could use to establish closed shops and consolidate power. The powerful dissent by Justice Holmes articulated a more pragmatic view of labor relations, arguing that organizational strength is a necessary precursor to effective bargaining, a perspective that would gain greater legal acceptance in subsequent decades.
