Reference no: EM13777175

The company owned and operated a rail system of over 9,000 miles in the states of Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming. These rail systems served as an integral part of the nationwide railway system in the transporting of passengers and freight in interstate commerce. When the railroad was established, railroad stations were built 7 to 10 miles apart. As might be expected, over the years, airplanes, trucks, automobiles, and barges reduced the demand for railroad traffic such that the work at some of these stations was less than one hour during a normal 8-hour day. In 1957, the Company filed petitions with the public utility commissions in four of the nine states in which it operated asking permission to either centralize or abolish some of these stations. Obviously, the plan would result in the loss of jobs for some employees including telegraphers. Weeks after the petitions were filed but before a decision could be made, the Union, duly certified and the acting collective bargaining agent of the railroad employees, notified the Company that it wanted to negotiate with the Company an amendment to the current labor agreement that no position in existence on December 3, 1957, would be abolished or discontinued except by mutual agreement. When the Company refused, the Union began a strike. The Company claimed that the Union had no labor dispute with them and therefore the Union had no legal protest with them. Further, the Company was not willing, or allowed under law, to contract away any of its managerial duties. It suggested that the Union appear before the state public utility commission if it was unhappy with the proposed changes. Because the Union had not done this, the Company was asking for an injunction. The Union claimed that an injunction could not be issued because under the provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, this case involved a labor dispute, and that the Company had refused to negotiate in good faith the proposed change in the existing contract. 1. Is this a labor dispute? Explain 2. How would you rule in this case? Why? Case 2 - Cold As Ice! The Ice and Coal Drivers and Handlers Local Union 953 supported 160 to 200 local union ice peddlers who drove their own trucks selling ice from door to door in New York City. However, the Union began efforts to induce all the nonunion peddlers to join the local union. In order to better wage and working conditions of peddlers and their helpers in the city, most of the nonunion peddlers refused to join the union. To break down their resistance and in retaliation, the Union adopted a plan, which was designed to make it impossible for union peddlers to buy ice to supply their local retail customers. At the same time, the union set about to obtain from all area wholesale ice distributors agreements that they would not sell ice to union peddlers. Agreements were obtained from all distributors except the Empire Storage and Ice Company. Empire refused to agree and as a result the Union informed Empire that it would use other means at its disposal to force the Company to come around to the union view. Empire still refused to agree. Empire's location was promptly picketed by union members for the Company's continued sale of ice of nonunion peddlers. About 85% of the truck drivers working the Empire's customers were members of labor unions and during the strike these union truck drivers refused to deliver goods to or from Empire's place of business. It was policy that had any one of them crossed the picket line he/she could have been subject to fines or suspension by the union of which he/she was a member. As a result, the picketing had an instantaneous adverse effect on Empire's business reducing profits by over 80%. 1. Describe and explain the role the truck drivers could and did play. Would it legally matter if they were not members of the picketing union? 2. Using only the information of Sherman Act, decide the case. Explain your legal reason(s).