Collective Bargaining And The Antitrust Laws

Two recent antitrust cases, coming from widely separated areas, different industries and involving wholly different facts were decided by the Supreme Court on June 7, 1965. The decisions in these two cases may well prove to be the most important and far-reaching decisions in the field of labor law that have been handed down in the last 24 years. These cases, although quite dissimilar factually, had one common element. In both, the gravamen of the antitrust violation was bottomed on the terms of labor agreements negotiated by a multiemployer group. These cases are usually referred to as Pennington1 and Jewel Teat. Since a number.-of references will be made to the antitrust laws, it may be well to state briefly the applicable portions. Section I of the Sherman Antitrust Act makes "every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal...". Section 2 imposes criminal sanctions against "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several states...". Under Section 4 of the Clayton Act a person who sustains damages as a result of a violation of the antitrust laws is entitled to recover treble damages plus costs.