Norris-La Guardia Act

United States 1932

Synopsis

The Norris-La Guardia Anti-Injunction Act (hereafter referred to as Norris-La Guardia) is a federal law passed in 1932 in an attempt to forbid court injunctions from being used to undermine or halt labor union activities. Under the law, federal courts were not allowed to invoke an injunction to stop any labor activity, including boycotts, pickets, and strikes. Also banned under the law were yellow-dog contracts. These documents were signed statements wherein workers, as a condition of employment, agreed not to join or support a union.

Timeline

• 1917: Russian revolutions.
• 1922: Inspired by the Bolsheviks' example of imposing revolution by means of a coup, Benito Mussolini leads his blackshirts in an October "March on Rome," and forms a new fascist government.
• 1927: Charles A. Lindbergh makes the first successful solo nonstop flight across the Atlantic, and becomes an international hero.
• 1929: On "Black Friday" in October, prices on the U.S. stock market, which had been climbing wildly for several years, suddenly collapse. Thus begins the first phase of a world economic crisis and depression that will last until the beginning of World War II.
• 1932: When Ukrainians refuse to surrender their grain to his commissars, Stalin seals off supplies to the region, creating a manmade famine that will produce a greater death toll than the entirety of World War I.
• 1932: A "Bonus Army" of unemployed veterans marches on Washington, D.C. Many leave after Congress refuses their demands for payment of bonuses for wartime service, but others are forcibly removed by General Douglas MacArthur's troops. Also participating are two other figures destined to gain notoriety in the next world war: majors Dwight D. Eisenhower and George S. Patton.
• 1932: In German elections, Nazis gain a 37 percent plurality of Reichstag seats, raising tensions between the far right and the far left. On a "bloody Sunday" in July, communists in Hamburg attack Nazis with guns, and a fierce battle ensues.
• 1932: Charles A. Lindbergh's baby son is kidnapped and killed, a crime for which Bruno Hauptmann will be charged in 1934, convicted in 1935, and executed in 1936.
• 1935: Second phase of New Deal begins with the introduction of social security, farm assistance, and housing and tax reform.
• 1937: Italy signs the Anti-Comintern Pact, signed by Germany and Japan the preceding year. Like the two others before it, Italy now withdraws from the League of Nations.
• 1942: Axis conquests reach their height in the middle of this year. The Nazis control a vast region from Normandy to the suburbs of Stalingrad, and from the Arctic Circle to the edges of the Sahara. To the east, the Japanese "Co-Prosperity Sphere" encompasses territories from China to Burma to the East Indies, stretching deep into the western Pacific.
• 1947: Establishment of the Marshall Plan to assist European nations in recovering from the war.

Event and Its Context

Purpose of an Injunction

An injunction is a court order that forbids either an individual or a group from pursuing a course of action deemed harmful or destructive, especially towards property. The idea is to prevent an injury before it happens, rather than try to provide a remedy after the act is committed. Injunctions come in different forms, although temporary injunctions are the kind most commonly used. Individuals or organizations that think their property might be at risk due to the actions of another may petition a court for relief. Courts often grant a restraining order, or a temporary injunction, in such instances, to be followed by a hearing. Both parties are given the chance to present their side of the story at the hearing. If the presiding judge holds that the petitioner is correct in fearing for the property in question, the judge may issue a permanent injunction, which forbids the defendant to take any action against the property or person of the plaintiff. Defendants who refuse to adhere to the terms of the injunction may be ruled in contempt of court, which puts them at risk of a prison sentence.

Even though injunctions are meant to reduce crimes against property and prevent violence, conflicting issues and opinions swirl round effective use of this legal tool. Two complaints merit discussion. First, an injunction is law decreed by a single person, a judge, for no juries are used in such instances. Second, even though a temporary injunction is simply a holding pattern and does not indict one side or the other, the defendants against whom the injunction has been issued have no recourse or relief until the hearing is held. Regardless of the circumstances, they must either obey the injunction or face the legal consequences.

History of the Injunction

The court injunction has a very long history. The use of the injunction in modern times is based upon English common law. Under this system, in keeping with the definition of the term injunction, the monarch was empowered to forbid persons or groups from pursuing specific courses of action. As absolute monarchical rule gradually gave way to civil authority in England, courts of chancery assumed the role of issuing injunctions.

In the United States, courts of equity played the same role, although no one knows for certain when injunctions were first used to try to break the emerging power of the labor movement. What is certain is that the definition of property, the very thing meant to be protected by an injunction, evolved over time. At first property referred only to a physical structure, such as a home, factory, or warehouse. In time property came to include various means of transportation, such as railroads or ships. As the nineteenth century progressed, and with it the Industrial Revolution, owners of industry and capital began to classify their businesses as property. As the meaning of the word broadened, so did attempts to protect property, especially in the emerging capitalist world.

The first injunctions known to be issued against labor in the United States were used against striking railroad workers in 1877. Leaders in the labor movement viewed management's use of the injunction as difficult at best, if not destructive and devastating as well, at least in terms of achieving their goals. The most formidable tool of the labor movement, the strike, demands swift, decisive action at exactly the right moment in order to win a conflict or achieve a more advantageous bargaining position. By using the legal tool of the injunction, management defended its right to conduct business; however, labor lost its edge in the process. Even worse, if labor chose to ignore the injunction, leaders and sometimes members of the rank and file were subject to a fine or prison sentence. Any hope of ameliorating the conditions that led to contemplating a strike or other labor action in the first place was greatly diminished in such a situation.

The Pullman Strike of 1894

Although use of the injunction varied from state to state and even from court to court, the event that brought it to nationwide attention was the infamous Pullman Strike of 1894, which started in Chicago, Illinois, in the midst of an economic depression. George Pullman, who helped to revolutionize long-distance rail travel, manufactured luxury railway cars. In order to maintain control over the workers who labored in his manufacturing plants, Pullman constructed a company town. Here his employees could live close to work, provided that they paid the rents he controlled, patronized his stores, and purchased his utilities. During the economic downturn, Pullman cut the wages of his workers, but he did not reduce the price of living in his town.

Led by Eugene V. Debs and his newly created American Railway Union (ARU), workers initiated a boycott against the Pullman Palace Car Company. The effects of this boycott and ensuing strike were spectacular and widespread, as within a mere two weeks the railway system throughout the Midwest and in some areas of the rest of the United States ground to a halt. By 1894 the country was heavily dependent on railways, so getting them running again engaged the best efforts of federal officials as well as railway management. In searching for a way to break the strike, a federal court issued an injunction against the strikers. They were charged with interfering with the mail and delaying interstate commerce through their actions. Debs, the ARU, and the strikers ignored the injunction.

President Grover Cleveland dispatched federal troops on the spot, which prompted an outburst of violence. Since he had blatantly ignored the injunction, Debs was cited with contempt of court and jailed. When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the injunction, many labor leaders and ordinary workers realized that management now had access to a new and dangerous means of combating labor activities. Employers were not afraid to turn to the injunction, and courts were more than willing to issue them.

Disputes Arising from Use of the Injunction

After the Pullman Strike, the use of the injunction was hotly disputed, with no shortage of opinions on the matter. Laborers and their leaders viewed the injunction as a way to curb their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly. This was true, as many injunctions were "blanket injunctions," which placed all members of a union or other labor organization under their directives, regardless of their knowledge or participation in a labor dispute. Moreover, many courts refused to adhere to the guidelines of first issuing a temporary injunction and then moving forward to a hearing. Instead, without hearing both sides, they simply ordered the injunction requested by employers. Those who owned a business or industry, however, also had rights. They viewed the injunction as a means to prevent labor unrest, which could potentially destroy not only their property but also their livelihoods.

At the center of this issue was whether or not unions had the right to conduct strikes, boycotts, or other labor actions. In 1842 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Commonwealth v. Hunt that unions did indeed have the legal right to strike. However, the ruling stopped short of defining what kind of strike was legal, and subsequent judicial decisions propounded the ambiguity, since they conflicted with one another. Therefore, no single legal precedent supported the use of the injunction to quell disruptive labor activities.

Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914

Debate ranged beyond the anger and frustration felt within the labor movement and entered the political realm. The Democratic Party condemned any move toward anti-injunction legislation in the 1896 election, so attempts to enact legal restrictions on management's use of the injunction languished for years at the federal level. Finally, however, Congress passed the Clayton Antitrust Act in 1914. The federal government was following in the footsteps of six states that had enacted similar legislation prior to this time. The Clayton Act was intended to strengthen the earlier Sherman Antitrust Act and eased the restrictive use of the injunction. According to the act, labor activities such as peaceful picketing, boycotts, and strikes were both legal and immune to the labor injunction, unless plaintiffs could prove that property might be irreparably damaged. Employers were also required to give unions notice prior to the issuance of an injunction.

Truax v. Corrigan

For a few years the truce among labor, management, and the injunction held. In the 1921 U.S. Supreme Court case Truax v. Corrigan, however, an Arizona law that was based on the Clayton Act was declared unconstitutional. At issue was a picketed boycott of a restaurant, and in striking down the law, the Court argued that the owner's right to do business was protected by both the Fourteenth Amendment and the due process clause. In the wake of this decision, state legislatures throughout the country used the language of Truax v. Corrigan to rewrite their anti-injunction laws, many of which passed state constitutional review.

Iterations of Anti-Injunction Legislation

The torch passed once again to the federal government to enact an anti-injunction law that would pass court review, and Congress began to investigate the matter seriously. First, in order to create acceptable legislation, they called specialists to testify in committees and to work with them to write the law in such a way that it would pass constitutional muster in the courts. In 1927, even while states were busy reworking their laws following the Truax v. Corrigan decision, Congress prepared to send an anti-injunction bill to the floor for consideration. Introduced by Senator Henrik Shipstead of Minnesota, the bill revised the meaning of property. In March 1928 a Senate committee, led by George Norris, began hearings on the bill. Organized labor considered the bill ineffective. Even Shipstead himself was not committed to the act, and when the committee decided to rewrite the measure altogether, he did not object.

In May 1928 Norris submitted a new bill. The proposed law banned yellow-dog contracts and gave labor the legal authority to organize and to engage in collective bargaining. Except in specific circumstances, which were clearly outlined in the bill, federal courts no longer had jurisdiction to issue injunctions. Courts could no longer require labor to stop a lawful, peaceful strike, nor could they prevent workers from assembling to discuss, plan, or encourage a strike. The bill removed the stigma of "unlawful conspiracy" from workers engaged in a labor dispute, and labor leaders could no longer be held responsible for the actions of the rank and file. However, if authorities determined that a situation was unlawful or that irreparable injury to property or persons was imminent, courts were empowered to offer relief in the form of an injunction.

Norris-La Guardia Becomes Law

During the debate, revisions were made to the bill, and a new version was again ready for consideration in 1930. Because of various political roadblocks and sidetracking, however, the Senate's Judiciary Committee did not vote on the bill until 1932. Following their favorable vote, the bill moved to the Senate floor for consideration and was overwhelmingly approved. Norris himself delivered a copy of the Senate bill to Fiorello La Guardia of New York, a member of the House of Representatives. La Guardia presented the bill on the House floor, which made him a cosponsor; therefore, his name was appended to the title. The measure received an overwhelmingly positive reception, and the House quickly passed it. On 23 March 1932 President Herbert Hoover signed the bill into law.

Provisions of Norris-La Guardia

Despite the many revisions and changes made to the measure between 1928 and 1932, the power of Norris-La Guardia was not diminished. Federal courts were forbidden to issue injunctions in the case of labor disputes. Workers were permitted to strike, or merely begin a work stoppage, and the courts were not allowed to prevent these actions. Furthermore, unions could assist striking workers and their families with subsistence funds, something some courts in the past had prevented through injunctions.

Additionally, provided that there was no evidence of violence or fraud, workers could lawfully publicize the strike, boycott, or picket. They could also encourage workers still on the job to support the action by joining forces with the strikers. Most importantly, employers could no longer make workers choose between having a job and joining a union, since courts of law could no longer enforce yellow-dog contracts. However, Norris-La Guardia balanced labor's gains with provisions for employers, who could still bring suit against unions in civil court. Moreover, swift prosecution awaited anyone, labor or management, involved in criminal actions under the guise of a labor activity or management response to it.

Norris-La Guardia represented a victory for labor, but the bill's becoming law coincided with some of the darkest years of the Great Depression. Thousands of people were out of work, and while the injunction issue mattered, many other concerns garnered workers' attention as well. The election of Franklin D. Roosevelt to the presidency and the beginnings of the New Deal assured labor's achieving even greater gains, especially in the realm of collective bargaining. Labor-management relations remained cordial throughout the World War II years, as everyone was focused on the war effort.

Norris-La Guardia After World War II

The end of the war, however, marked a backlash against the gains labor had won during the previous two decades. In 1947 the Taft-Hartley Act was passed over President Harry S Truman's veto. Taft-Hartley rolled back many of labor's hard-won gains. For example, the law banned the closed shop and allowed employers to sue a union if the company incurred any sort of damages, especially monetary, due to a strike.

The injunction issue never completely disappeared and is still contentious from time to time today. However, use of the injunction no longer provokes the controversy it did in the early years of the twentieth century. Passage of the Norris-La Guardia Act was a milestone in labor history. From the battles begun on the state level to the eventual passage of federal legislation, the injunction issue was a major rallying cry for workers who were being prevented from exercising their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly. Moreover, Norris-La Guardia was the logical precursor to the much more extensive National Labor Relations Act (also known as the Wagner Act), the most important single piece of labor legislation enacted in the United States in the twentieth century.

Key Players

La Guardia, Fiorello Henry (1882-1947): Greatly loved and respected mayor of New York City (1933-1945). A coalition with La Guardia as its standard bearer unseated the Tammany Hall regime in New York City, ending years of corrupt machine politics. Prior to his leadership role in New York City, La Guardia served in the House of Representatives briefly in 1916. He left this post to serve as a pilot during World War I. He was reelected to the House in 1922 and served four terms, during which time he supported the right of women to vote and laws governing child labor. He opposed Prohibition and cosponsored the Norris-La Guardia Act.

Norris, George (1861-1944): Although born in Ohio, Norris eventually moved to Nebraska, where he served as prosecuting attorney, district judge, congressman from 1903 to 1918, and then eventually senator from 1913 to 1942, during which time he worked indefatygably to secure passage of a federal anti-injunction act.

See also: Clayton Antitrust Act; Commonwealth v. Hunt; Pullman Strike; Taft-Hartley Act; Traux v. Corrigan; Wagner Act.

Bibliography

Books

Bernstein, Irving. The Lean Years: A History of the American Worker, 1920-1933. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1960.

Frankfurter, Felix, and Nathan Greene. The Labor Injunction. New York: Macmillan, 1930.

Friedman, Lawrence. A History of American Law. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985.

Taylor, Albion Guilford. Labor Problems and Labor Law. New York: Prentice Hall, 1938.

Taylor, Benjamin, and Fred Witney. U.S. Labor Relations Law: Historical Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1992.

Periodicals

Newton-Matza, Mitchell. "The Crack of the Whip: The Chicago Federation of Labor Battles Against the Labor Injunction in the 1920s." Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 93 (spring 2000): 82-107.

—Mitchell Newton-Matza