Confirmation of Hon. John J. Parker to be an Associate Justice of Teh Supreme Court of the United States: Hearing...April 5, 1930 ...1930 - 83 pages |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
agree agreement American Federation appointment April Associate Justice attorney at law Bittner break their contract circuit court Clayton Act Coal & Coke complainants confirmation of Judge conspiracy Constitution contract of employment court of appeals decision decree defendants district court economic employ enjoined Federation of Labor Fourth Circuit grandfather clause Greensboro held Hitchman Coal induce industry injunction interstate commerce Jacket Consolidated Coal join a union join the union Judge John Judge McClintic Judge Parker judicial jurisdiction labor union league miners misjoinder negro North Carolina officers opinion organized labor party persons persuading plaintiff to break plaintiff's employees President Green purpose question Raleigh Red Jacket Consolidated rendered Republican restrain Senator BORAH Senator HEBERT Silk Hosiery Mills strike Supreme Court tion TOWNSEND union membership United Mine Workers United States Senate United States Supreme violation vote wages Washington West Virginia Workers of America yellow-dog contract
Popular passages
Page 27 - We said that they were organized out of the necessities of the situation; that a single employee was helpless in dealing with an employer; that he was dependent ordinarily on his daily wage for the maintenance of himself and family; that if the employer refused to pay him the wages that he thought fair, he was nevertheless unable to leave the employ and resist arbitrary and unfair treatment; that union was essential to give laborers opportunity to deal on an equality with their employer.
Page 37 - Coronado case the court ruled that while the mere reduction in the supply of an article to be shipped in interstate commerce by the illegal or tortious prevention of its manufacture or production is ordinarily an indirect and remote obstruction to that commerce...
Page 23 - That the plaintiff was acting within its lawful rights in employing its men only upon terms of continuing nonmembership in the United Mine Workers of America is not open to question. Plaintiff's repeated costly experiences of strikes and other interferences while attempting to "run union" were a sufficient explanation of its resolve to run "non-union,
Page 67 - ... to be shipped in interstate commerce by the illegal or tortious prevention of its manufacture or production is ordinarily an indirect and remote obstruction to that commerce, nevertheless when the "intent of those unlawfully preventing the manufacture or production is shown to be to restrain or control the supply entering and moving in interstate commerce, or the price of it in interstate markets, their action is a direct violation of the Anti-Trust Act.
Page 22 - Another fundamental error in defendants' position consists in the assumption that all measures that may be resorted to are lawful if they are " peaceable " — that is. if they stop short of physical violence. or coercion through fear of it. In our opinion, any violation of plaintiff's legal rights contrived by defendants for the purpose of inflicting damage, or having...
Page 46 - IWW, or any other mine labor organization, and the employee will not join or belong to any such union or organization, and will not aid, encourage or approve the organization thereof, it being understood that the policy of said company is to operate a non-union mine...
Page 23 - Plaintiff, having in the exercise of its undoubted rights established a working agreement between it and its employees, with the free assent of the latter, is entitled to be protected in the enjoyment of the resulting status, as in any other legal right.
Page 13 - This court repeatedly has held that the employer is as free to make non-membership in a union a condition of employment, as the -working man is free to join the union, and that this is a part of the constitutional rights of personal liberty and private property, not to be taken away even by legislation, unless through some proper exercise of the paramount police power.
Page 12 - These are the chief features of a "unionizing" by which the employer's liberty is curtailed. Each of them is legal. To obtain any of them or all of them men may lawfully strive and even strike. And, if the union may legally strike to obtain each of the things for which the agreement provides, why may it not strike or use equivalent economic pressure to secure an agreement to provide them? It is also urged that defendants are seeking to "coerce" plaintiff to "unionize
Page 12 - The employer may sign the union agreement for fear that labor may not be otherwise obtainable ; the workman may sign the individual agreement for fear that employment may not be otherwise obtainable. But such fear does not imply coercion in a legal sense. In other words an employer, in order to effectuate the closing of his shop to union labor, may exact an agreement to that effect from his employees. The agreement itself being a lawful one, the employer may withhold from the men an economic need...