Bibliography-I

The

courts, however, have frequently passed upon the legality of labour's traditional weapons, the strike, the boycott, and the picket line. The injunction has been the remedy most widely used to resolve the rights of adversaries in industrial conflict. Rooted in equity, the labour injunction first assumed importance as a re sult of its use in the Debs case in 1895. Since then it has become the most important of the many legal devices employed to define the permissible scope of collective labour activity. Two tests de termine the issuance of an injunction in a labour dispute—the character of the purpose to which the concerted action is directed and the legality of the means used to attain that purpose. All courts agree that a strike to increase wages, shorten hours or bet ter working conditions is a strike for a legal purpose. The courts, however, have not unanimously declared the strike for the closed shop or preferential shop legal and several states have held illegal a strike for union recognition. The picket line, like the strike, may be enjoined where its purpose is unlawful. But apart from the legality of the purpose the conduct itself is illegal in many states. Some courts ban all picketing on the ground that it necessarily involves coercion. Others permit picketing when reasonably conducted. The use of the boycott has similarly re sulted in contradictory decisions. The primary boycott is legal but the courts have not shown a similar hospitality to the sec ondary boycott. Thus several leading cases have declared illegal the exercise of economic pressure by a trade union to compel the third parties to refrain from patronizing an employer who refuses to accede to union demands. The refusal to work on non-union goods has also been enjoined.

Inasmuch as equitable relief has in so many cases been obtained by employers organized labour has denounced the use of the in junction. And certain abuses have appeared in the granting of injunction relief. Frequently the courts have hastily and errone ously enjoined conduct which on subsequent examination was found not to threaten irreparable injury to complainant's property. Orders have been expressed in ambiguous language. Moreover the findings have not always justified the sweeping and inclusive character of the restraints. Orders have often been issued on the basis of ex parte affidavits without giving notice and opportunity to be heard. To correct some of these abuses Congress enacted the Clayton Act in 1914. But in a series of cases the courts in terpreted the Act to be merely declaratory of previous law. Thus, few significant changes in practice occurred.

Finally in 1932 the Norris-LaGuardia Act received Congres sional approval. The Act withdraws equity jurisdiction from the Federal courts in cases involving labour disputes under stated circumstances. Injunctions may not issue to prevent persons from obtaining work, paying strike benefits, giving publicity to the facts of a labour dispute by any method not involving fraud or violence or advising others to do the acts specified. Both equi

table and legal protection is withheld from the "yellow dog con tract." Exemptions from legal restraint are no longer confined to disputes between persons standing in the direct relationship of employer and employees. Procedural safeguards are established. In those courts where injunctions may issue, the Act requires Equity courts to make findings that unlawful acts are threatened, that irreparable injury will result to complainants' property un less relief is granted, that complainant has no adequate remedy at law and as to each item of relief granted greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendant by the granting of relief. Moreover it must be shown that the local police force is unwilling or unable to furnish adequate protection. The passage of the Norris-La Guardia Act has diminished the number of injunctions issued by Federal courts. To mitigate similar abuses in the exercise of equi table jurisdiction in state courts, several states have passed simi lar statutes.

For the purpose of encouraging the making of trade agree ments, which is the aim of all collective bargaining, both the Fed eral Government and the states have legislatively provided for voluntary arbitration or conciliation or mediation. Within the United States Department of Labor, a conciliation service which is authorized to mediate whenever in the judgment of the Secre tary of Labor "the interest of industrial peace may so require" has existed since the inception of the Department ; and it is re ported by the Conciliation Service that from 193o to 1934 dis putes and differences which either directly or indirectly affected approximately 2,230,000 workers were amicably adjusted through its good offices, either on its own volition or with the cooperation of the State Departments of Labor and local agencies. In one state, compulsory investigation of labour disputes, accompanied by a prohibition of strikes pending the completion of investiga tion, exists. But, most state laws provide for government interven tion on a basis of conciliation and voluntary arbitration.

Employment Exchanges.

Both the Federal Government and many states have, for a number of years, maintained public employment agencies. In 1933 Congress through the Wagner Peyser Act, created a U.S. Employment Service in the Depart ment of Labor, which supplanted a former Federal employment system. Funds are made available to the states on an equal matching basis to assist them financially in establishing and op erating state employment agencies. It is the duty of the national service to coordinate public employment offices throughout the country and to prescribe minimum standards of efficiency. In those states which have not yet accepted the terms of the Federal grant, a National Reemployment Service under the direct admin istration of the U.S. Employment Service is maintained.