Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Gibbs v. United Mine Workers of America

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureLabor LawSecondary BoycottJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictNew TrialRemittiturSupplemental Jurisdiction29 U.S.C. 187

Facts

Grundy, a subsidiary of Consolidated, agreed to employ Gibbs as mine superintendent and also gave him a coal-hauling contract for an indefinite period when it sought to open non-UMW mines in the Gray's Creek Area. On the first days of work, UMW members picketed and showed force, and the mine never opened; Gibbs received only one partial salary check and never hauled coal under the trucking arrangement. The court submitted to the jury only claims based on alleged union conduct directed at causing Grundy to terminate Gibbs's employment and trucking contracts. The jury found for Gibbs on statutory and common law theories and awarded $174,500 total damages.

Issue

Whether the evidence supported liability under Section 303 and common law conspiracy for union activity aimed at Grundy's relationship with Gibbs, and whether Gibbs qualified as an "other person" under the secondary-boycott statute for both his employment and trucking claims. The court also considered whether the damage awards were legally supported and excessive.

Rule

Union conduct constitutes an actionable secondary boycott under 29 U.S.C. Section 187 when an object of the conduct is to force or require one person to cease doing business with another person, so long as the conduct is not merely primary strike or picketing with only incidental secondary effects. The situs of the activity and the presence or absence of violence are not controlling; the controlling inquiry is the object of the union activity. Employees and supervisors of the primary employer are not "other person[s]" within the statute as to losses from primary employment, but an independent contractor doing business with the employer may be.

🔒

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 eastern Kentucky, Ridge Hollow Energy hired Elena Park as its operations manager and separately agreed to buy crushed stone hauling services from her sole proprietorship. Members of a miners' union picketed access roads and a union field representative told several workers that the pressure would continue until Ridge Hollow "cuts Elena loose completely" because management should not be using her company.

If Elena sues under 29 U.S.C. § 187, what is the strongest argument that the union activity can qualify as an actionable secondary boycott?

Explanation. The majority treated the controlling inquiry as the object of the union activity. If an object is to force one person to cease doing business with another, the conduct may be actionable, even if the union is attacking on multiple fronts or pursuing additional goals. Situs alone is not controlling, and the statute is not limited to classic 'neutral' parties. (Derived from Gibbs v. United Mine Workers of America (n.d.).)