Reference no: EM131281137
On January 25, 1946, a large group of pickets, estimated to be from 100 to 200 in number, standing three deep, extended across the gate and blocked the entrance to plaintiff's Homestead plant and thus denied access to the plant to individuals below the rank of superintendent....
There were ... injunction affidavits filed all purporting to show that supervisory officials were denied access to plaintiff's plant and that the defendant labor union and its officials and agents had arrogated to itself and themselves the authority to determine what employees of the plaintiff corporation should and should not, respectively, enter the corporation's plant, and that the Union enforced its assumed authority by massing approximately 200 pickets at the gate leading into the plant. The court below in response to the above bill of complaint, supported by the above injunction affidavits and others, granted the injunction prayed for.... ...
When this case reached this court and the record was before us, it then became our duty to decide whether or not the facts showed that what the defendants were doing constituted a "holding" or "seizure" of the plant or any part of it. The holding or seizure of even one gateway to the plant entitled the plaintiff to the protection of a court of equity just as fully as would the seizure of an entire plant. When a "picket line" becomes a picket fence it is time for government to act. Collective coercion is not a legitimate child ofcollective bargaining.
The forcible seizure of an employer's property is the very essence of communism. Injunctions are not issued against picketing when the latter's only purposes are to advertise the fact that there is a strike in a certain plant and to persuade workers to join in the strike and to urge the public not to patronize the employer. For these purposes, a limited number of pickets is all that is necessary. But when hundreds of pickets are massed, as at least 200 were here at a single gate, it is obvious that this force was not mustered for a peaceful purpose.... We dismiss this appeal....
Case Questions
1. What workers did the pickets exclude from the plant?
2. Suppose regular production workers were the only ones excluded. Would this have made a difference in the decision of the court?
3. How many pickets were at the main entrance?
4. How did the court characterize the picket line in its analogy?
5. State the rule of law of this case.