Labor Unions and the Sherman Act: Rethinking Labor's Nonstatutory Exemption
![handle is hein.journals/lla22 and id is 171 raw text is: LABOR UNIONS AND THE SHERMAN ACT:
RETHINKING LABOR'S NONSTATUTORY
EXEMPTION
I. INTRODUCTION
To what extent should labor unions be subjected to the proscriptions
of the Sherman Act?' This question has generated much confusion and
controversy amongst the legal community. It has been the subject of
heated debate since the Sherman Act was passed in 1890.2 After almost
one hundred years, however, courts have done very little to clarify the
confusion. The problem is two-fold. First, the antitrust laws3 and the
national labor laws4 embody two important, but at times conflicting,'
congressional declarations of public policy. On the one hand, the anti-
trust laws strive to create and maintain a freely competitive commercial
environment.6 On the other hand, the national labor laws seek to im-
prove employment conditions by eliminating competition in the labor
market over wages, hours and working conditions.7 This conflict creates
1. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7 (1982). At the present time, labor unions enjoy two exemptions from
the Sherman Act: a statutory and nonstatutory exemption. See infra notes 216-473 and ac-
companying text for a discussion of these exemptions.
2. See 6 J. VON KALINOWSKI, ANTITRUST LAWS AND TRADE REGULATION § 48.02, at
4 (1988).
3. The antitrust laws include the Sherman Antitrust Act, §§ 1-7 (1890) (current version
codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7 (1982)) and the Clayton Act, §§ 1-8, 10-16, 20, 26 (1914) (current
version codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 12-27 (1982), 29 U.S.C. §§ 52-53 (1982)). References to the
antitrust laws throughout this Comment are meant to include both the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act.
4. The national labor laws consist, in part, of the following: Norris-LaGuardia Anti-
Injunction Act, §§ 1-15 (1932) (current version codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 101-115 (1982)); Na-
tional Labor Relations (Wagner) Act, §§ 1-19 (1935) (current version codified at 29 U.S.C.
§§ 151-169 (1982)); Labor Management Relations (Taft-Hartley) Act of 1947 (current version
codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 141-197 (1982)); Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure (Lan-
drum-Griffin) Act of 1959, Pub. L. No. 86-257, 73 Stat. 519 (codified as amended in scattered
sections of 29 U.S.C.).
5. The United States Supreme Court recognized this conflict in Allen Bradley Co. v.
Local No. 3, IBEW, 325 U.S. 797, 806 (1945), see infra note 269. See also Consolidated Ex-
press, Inc. v. New York Shipping Ass'n, 452 F. Supp. 1024, 1036 (D.N.J. 1977) (It is a
commonplace that the antitrust laws and the labor laws are antithetical. The antitrust laws are
designed to promote competition; the unions are in the business of limiting it.), aff'd in part
and rev'd in part;, 602 F.2d 494 (3d Cir. 1979), vacated on other grounds, 448 U.S. 902 (1980).
6. See 6 J. VON KALINOWSKI, supra note 2, § 48.03[l], at 29. See generally 1 H. ToUL-
MIN, A TREATISE ON THE ANTI-TRuST LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES 93-112 (1949).
7. See Local No. 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen v. Jewel Tea Co.,
381 U.S. 676, 714 (1965) (Goldberg, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/lla22&div=13&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Labor Unions and the Sherman Act: Rethinking Labor's Nonstatutory Exemption
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most