Lawlor v. Loewe

Background

A group of hat manufacturers who used nonunion labor sued members of a labor union and the larger federation. The manufacturers said the unions organized a primary and secondary boycott, circulated “unfair” or “we don’t patronize” lists, used the union label, and ordered strikes. Those actions, the manufacturers said, cut off their sales to dealers in other States and wrecked their interstate business. The case went to trial, the manufacturers won a jury verdict, and the lower courts upheld the judgment.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the union members could be held responsible for the union-led boycott that restrained interstate trade. The Court found that a forbidden combination and conspiracy were proved and focused on members’ responsibility for actions taken by their societies. The Court approved the jury instruction that members who paid dues and delegated authority to officers — in circumstances they knew or should have known would lead officers to interfere with interstate trade — could be held jointly liable if the officers reasonably believed they acted within their authority. The Court relied on the unions’ constitutions, by-laws, public practices, and widespread notice of the boycott methods to show those acts were authorized and foreseeable.

Real world impact

The ruling confirms that organized, public boycotts and lists used to stop out business can count as unlawful restraints on interstate commerce. Individual union members who fund and authorize such schemes can be held liable and the harmed businesses can seek damages for the injury caused. The opinion affirms that courts may consider publicity, internal rules, and customary practices in deciding liability.