FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN LABOR DISPUTES AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING-THE HUTCHESON CASE

Authors

Ludwig Teller, Member of the New York bar

Abstract

The very face of federal law governing labor unions and labor activities has been transformed by the recent holding by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Hutcheson, that the Sherman, Clayton and Norris Acts must be read not separately but as "interlacing statutes," and that labor activity unenjoinable under the Norris Act is likewise and by the same token uncensurable under the Sherman Act. In so deciding, the high court has drastically affected the meaning of the Sherman Act, and the extent of its application to labor activities. New life has been given to the Clayton Act, and many heretofore authoritative cases, both those decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and those announced by lower federal courts, have been overruled. Broad scope has been accorded to the Norris Act. And the Sherman Act as applied to labor cases has been substantially restricted if not almost read out of the statute books. Not without divergence and sharp dissent in connection with crucial labor law issues was this transformation wrought. The implications of the Hutcheson case are the subject of this article.

Recommended Citation

Ludwig Teller, FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN LABOR DISPUTES AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING-THE HUTCHESON CASE, 40 Mich. L. Rev. 24 (1941).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol40/iss1/3