Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Ds are members and officers of the Ice and Coal Drivers and Handlers Local Union No. 953, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Its members are retail ice peddlers who drive their own trucks in selling ice from door to door. Many nonunion peddlers refused to join the union. D adopted a plan which was designed to make it impossible for nonunion peddlers to buy ice to supply their retail customers. D sought to obtain from all wholesale ice distributors agreements that they would not sell ice to nonunion peddlers. P refused to agree. D informed P that it would use other means at its disposal to force P to come around to the union view. P's place of business was promptly picketed by union members although the only complaint against P was its continued sale of ice to nonunion peddlers. Missouri statutes make such an agreement a crime punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 and by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not more than five years. Had P made the agreement, the ice peddlers could have brought actions for triple damages for any injuries they sustained as a result of the agreement. Almost all of the truck drivers working for P's customers were members of labor unions. These union truck drivers refused to deliver goods to or from P's place of business as they would not cross the picket lines. P's business was reduced 85%. P sued Ds alleging that Ds' activities were a violation of the anti-trade-restraint statute. Ds asserted a constitutional right to picket P's premises in order to force it to discontinue the sale of ice to nonunion peddlers that was 'guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments' because there was 'a labor dispute existing' between P and D. The court issued an injunction restraining Ds from 'placing pickets or picketing around or about the buildings' of P. The State Supreme Court affirmed. It held that Ds' activities were unlawful because in violation of § 8301 of the Missouri statutes and further held that the injunction to prevent picketing for such unlawful purpose did not contravene the Ds' right of free speech. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co