Vegelahn v. Guntner

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1896 · Labor Law

Labor LawLabor injunctionsPicketingIntimidationInterference with employmentstrikepatrolpicketing

Facts

After the plaintiff's workers went on strike, the defendants conspired to prevent the plaintiff from obtaining workers and thereby from carrying on his business unless he accepted a particular wage schedule. To carry out that plan, they used persuasion and social pressure, conveyed threats of personal injury or unlawful harm to current and prospective workers, and maintained a two-man patrol outside the plaintiff's factory throughout the workday on a busy Boston street. The patrol sometimes went beyond simple advice, at times more men were present, and there was some evidence of persuasion to break existing contracts. The report found that the patrol would probably continue if not enjoined.

Issue

Whether defendants engaged in a labor dispute may lawfully maintain a patrol in front of the employer's premises, together with threats, social pressure, and related acts, to prevent persons from entering or remaining in the employer's service. Also, whether equity may enjoin such conduct even when it may be criminal and even when the targeted workers are not bound by existing contracts.

Rule

No one may lawfully interfere by force or intimidation with employers' and workers' constitutional rights to make and continue employment relations. Intimidation is not limited to threats of physical violence; it may include moral intimidation, and patrolling or picketing under intimidating circumstances is unlawful. A combination aimed at injurious acts expressly directed at another by intimidation or constraint is outside allowable competition and may be enjoined as a continuing injury to business or property, even if the affected workers are not under existing contracts.

🔒

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 Providence, Rhode Island, Harbor Stitch Works reduced piece rates. In response, six members of a trade association agreed to pressure the owner to restore the old rates by stationing two members all day outside the workshop entrance while others spread word among job seekers that anyone who went inside would be "made sorry" and frozen out of the local trade network.

If Harbor Stitch Works seeks an injunction, which is the strongest argument for relief under the majority rule?

Explanation. The majority held that patrolling or picketing, when used with threats and social pressure as part of a plan to prevent hiring or continued employment, constitutes unlawful intimidation. Intimidation is not limited to physical violence, and the purpose of securing better wages does not justify a combination directed injuriously at another by intimidation or constraint.