Vegelahn v. Guntner
1896 Mass. LEXIS 33, 44 N.E. 1077, 167 Mass. 92 (1896)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patrol by striking workers in front of an employer's premises, intended to prevent individuals from entering or continuing employment, constitutes an unlawful form of intimidation and a private nuisance that can be enjoined by a court of equity, regardless of whether physical violence is used.
Facts:
- Following a labor strike against the plaintiff's business, the defendants, who were striking workmen, organized a plan to prevent the plaintiff from hiring new workers.
- To carry out this plan, the defendants established a continuous patrol of two men in front of the plaintiff's factory.
- The patrol was maintained from 6:30 AM to 5:30 PM on a busy Boston street.
- The patrol members spoke with persons who were employed or seeking employment with the plaintiff.
- The defendants' efforts also included social pressure, threats of unlawful harm, and persuasion to break existing employment contracts to further their goal of compelling the plaintiff to adopt their wage schedule.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, a business owner, sought an injunction in a court of equity to stop the defendants' strike-related activities.
- A single justice of the court issued a broad preliminary injunction.
- After a hearing, Justice Holmes, sitting as the trial judge, issued a final decree that was narrower than the original injunction, primarily prohibiting threats of physical harm.
- The plaintiff appealed to the full bench of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, seeking to have the broader, original injunction reinstated.
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 peaceful patrol maintained by striking workers in front of an employer’s business, as part of an organized effort to persuade others from working there, constitute an unlawful interference with the employer's business that a court can enjoin?
Opinions:
Majority - Allen, J.
Yes, a peaceful patrol maintained by striking workers constitutes an unlawful interference that a court can enjoin. The patrol is an instrument of intimidation directed at the plaintiff and potential employees, interfering with the constitutional rights of both the employer to hire and the employees to work. Even without direct physical violence, such 'moral intimidation' is illegal when it is part of a conspiracy to harm a business, and the motive of seeking higher wages does not justify this coercive means. A continuing injury to a business is a private nuisance that a court of equity can restrain, even if the acts are also criminal.
Dissenting - Holmes, J.
No, a peaceful patrol should not be enjoined as an unlawful interference if it is free from threats of violence. The intentional infliction of temporal damage is justified in the context of free competition, which includes the 'free struggle for life' between labor and capital. Combination and organized persuasion are lawful tools for workers to compete for better wages, just as businesses combine and compete for market share. As long as the patrol only engages in persuasion and social pressure without threats of force, it is a legitimate exercise of the workers' rights in their economic conflict with the employer.
Dissenting - Field, C. J.
No, the injunction should not be granted in this form. The use of injunctions in labor disputes is a recent and questionable practice, and a court of equity should not intervene unless there is a threat of destruction or irreparable injury to property. If the patrol amounts to criminal intimidation under statute, the proper remedy is through the criminal courts. If it is merely peaceful persuasion to inform potential workers of the facts, it is not illegal, and there is no ground for an injunction.
Analysis:
This case represents a traditional, conservative view of labor picketing, defining even peaceful patrols as inherently coercive and unlawful. The majority's opinion armed employers with the powerful tool of the injunction to break strikes. However, the case is most famous for Justice Holmes's dissenting opinion, which reframed the labor conflict as a form of economic competition. Holmes's view that workers should be allowed to use organized persuasion and economic pressure, short of violence, would profoundly influence American labor law and eventually become the dominant legal perspective.
Unlock the full brief for Vegelahn v. Guntner