LABOR LAW - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE ANTI-INJUNCTION ACTS - EXISTENCE OF A "LABOR DISPUTE"

Authors

Theodore R. Vogt, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Organized labor has long contested the use of the injunction in labor disputes and since the turn of the century has been active in legislative circles to secure statutory relief from the paralyzing effect of the too-freely granted temporary injunction and restraining order. A substantial step forward was the enactment of the Clayton Act by Congress. Similar legislation was adopted by several states, some before and some after the congressional action. However, the expected benefits to labor did not accrue, for the Supreme Court in Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering so narrowly construed the statute as to rob it of its effectiveness. And in Truax v. Corrigan the Court held the Arizona statute, based on the Clayton Act, unconstitutional as denying to the employer the equal protection of the laws and depriving him of property without due process of law. The state courts adopted similar narrow constructions of corresponding state legislation. Again in 1932, Congress acted to espouse the cause of labor in passing the Norris-La Guardia Act and several states have enacted laws identical in nature. These statutes are now being tested in the courts. The salient provisions of this kind of legislation have already been adequately discussed and comment made as to its constitutionality. The present discussion will be limited to a review of some of the recent cases in connection with the courts' decisions regarding (1) the constitutionality of the statutes and (2) what constitutes a "labor dispute" within the meaning of that term as used in the statutes.

Recommended Citation

Theodore R. Vogt, LABOR LAW - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE ANTI-INJUNCTION ACTS - EXISTENCE OF A "LABOR DISPUTE", 35 Mich. L. Rev. 1320 (1937).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol35/iss8/7