Baker Drivers v. Wohl

Supreme Court of the United States · 1942 · Labor Law

Labor LawFree SpeechPicketinglabor picketingFourteenth Amendmentfree speechpeaceful picketingtruthful publication

Facts

Respondents were individual bakery peddlers who bought baked goods from bakeries and resold them to small retailers, worked seven days a week, and had no employees. The union, representing bakery drivers, sought to preserve union wage, hour, and working-condition standards against the spread of the peddler system and asked respondents either to join the union or to work only six days a week and employ a union relief driver one day per week. When respondents refused, the union peacefully picketed near bakeries supplying respondents with truthful placards stating that respondents worked seven days a week and that the union sought employment for a union relief man for one day. The trial court found the picketing was truthful, peaceful, orderly, limited, and caused no proven monetary loss, yet enjoined it.

Issue

Whether a state may enjoin peaceful, truthful picketing used to publicize a union's labor grievance merely because the controversy is not a "labor dispute" within the meaning of state law. More specifically, whether such an injunction violates the Fourteenth Amendment when the picketing is unattended by violence, coercion, unlawful or oppressive conduct, or excessive picketing.

Rule

A person need not be in a "labor dispute" as defined by state law to have a right under the Fourteenth Amendment to express a grievance in a labor matter by publication unattended by violence, coercion, or conduct otherwise unlawful or oppressive. Peaceful, truthful, nonexcessive picketing may not be enjoined absent a substantive evil of sufficient magnitude to justify restricting free speech.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, a delivery workers' union learned that Nolan Pierce buys bottled beverages from local plants and resells them to neighborhood stores as a sole proprietor with no employees. The union placed one picket outside a plant for 90 minutes carrying a truthful sign stating that Pierce works seven days a week and that the union seeks one day of work each week for an unemployed union relief driver; the picketing was peaceful, orderly, and caused no obstruction. An Ohio court enjoined the picketing solely because state labor law defines a protected labor dispute as one involving an employer-employee relationship, which Pierce lacks.

Under the majority opinion, is the injunction most likely constitutional?

Explanation. The majority held that one need not be in a labor dispute as defined by state law to have a right under the Fourteenth Amendment to express a grievance in a labor matter by publication unattended by violence, coercion, or unlawful or oppressive conduct. Here, the injunction rests solely on the absence of a state-defined labor dispute, while the picketing is peaceful, truthful, and limited. Under that reasoning, the injunction is unconstitutional.