LABOR LAW - SECONDARY PICKETING - UNITY OF INTEREST BETWEEN MANUFACTURER AND RETAILER

Authors

Michigan Law Review, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

A manufacturer of burglar alarm systems installed one in complainant's retail haberdashery store, and entered into an agreement, renewable annually, for maintenance of the apparatus. In furtherance of a strike against the manufacturer of the alarm, defendant union representatives picketed complainant's store in a peaceful and orderly manner, carrying signs which read, "Maintenance of Burglar Alarm in this store unfair to Local No. 3." Defendants were convicted of disorderly conduct tending to a breach of the peace under the New York Penal Code. Held, on appeal from reversal of such convictions by the court of special sessions, reversal affirmed. "The picketing is for the purpose of promoting the lawful interests of a labor union in a labor dispute," and peaceful picketing is protected by the constitutional guaranty of free speech. People v. Muller, 286 N. Y. 281, 36 N. E. (2d) 206 (1941).

Recommended Citation

Michigan Law Review, LABOR LAW - SECONDARY PICKETING - UNITY OF INTEREST BETWEEN MANUFACTURER AND RETAILER, 40 Mich. L. Rev. 603 (1942).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol40/iss4/15