Lauf v. E.G. Shinner & Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1938 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsLabor injunctionsNorris-LaGuardia ActState labor lawlabor disputeNorris-LaGuardia Actfederal jurisdictioninjunction

Facts

Respondent operated five meat markets in Milwaukee, and none of its approximately thirty-five employees belonged to the petitioning union. Petitioners demanded that respondent require its employees, as a condition of continued employment, to join the union, but the employees declined and had not chosen the union as their representative. The district court found that petitioners then picketed respondent's markets, publicized that respondent was unfair to organized labor, and sought to dissuade customers from patronizing the stores in order to coerce respondent to require union membership and accept the union as bargaining representative. The district court also found irreparable injury and entered a broad injunction against picketing, advertising unfairness, and persuading customers not to trade with respondent.

Issue

Whether this controversy was a labor dispute within the meaning of the Wisconsin Labor Code and the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and if so, whether the federal district court could issue the injunction without making the findings required by the federal statute. The case also presented whether the district court could enjoin conduct that Wisconsin law declared lawful in labor disputes.

Rule

A controversy concerning the association or representation of employees in negotiating or arranging terms or conditions of employment is a labor dispute under both the Wisconsin Labor Code and the Norris-LaGuardia Act, even if the disputants are not in the proximate relation of employer and employee. In a case involving or growing out of such a labor dispute, a federal court has no jurisdiction to issue a temporary or permanent injunction unless it makes the findings required by § 7 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and it may not enjoin conduct that state law makes lawful in labor disputes.

🔒

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.

Granite Street Grocers, a fictional food retailer based in Madison, Wisconsin, employs 22 clerks. A local union whose members do not work there demands that Granite require all clerks to join the union and recognize it as the employees' bargaining representative; the clerks have not selected that union.

If Granite sues in federal district court for an injunction, which is the strongest conclusion about whether the controversy is a "labor dispute" under the Norris-LaGuardia Act as construed by the majority?

Explanation. The majority held that a controversy about employee association or representation is a labor dispute within the Norris-LaGuardia Act even if the disputants are not in the proximate relation of employer and employee. The policy declarations do not narrow the statute's express definition.