NATIONAL PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION OF STEAM FITTERS V. CUMMING, 170 N.Y. 315, 63 N.E. 369
This case involves competing labor organizations involved in the construction industry in New York City at the turn of the century. The defendant Cumming was a representative of the Enterprise Association of Steamfitters (Enterprise). He, along with other representatives of Enterprise and a similar organization, the Progress Association of Steamfitters (Progress), threatened employers with a general strike of all men in building construction trades if the employers did not discharge members of plaintiff’s organization, the National Protective Association of Steamfitters, and hire members of Enterprise and Progress instead. In some cases, these strikes were called. As a result of the threats and the strikes, members of the plaintiff’s organization were fired from jobs on various buildings throughout New York City and members of Enterprise and Progress were hired in their places. In addition, the defendant threatened to cause a general strike against plaintiff’s workers wherever he found them at work, except for some small jobs where Enterprise men were not employed. Enterprise and Progress representative “threatened to drive the plaintiff association out of existence."
The plaintiff sued seeking to enjoin defendant’s threats and strikes and for compensation for their job loses due to defendant’s actions. The trial court found that defendant’s threats and acts constituted an “illegal combination and conspiracy” that injured members of the plaintiff association and prevented them from earning their livelihood in their trade. It ordered that defendants must stop coercing by threats or actions the dismissal of members of the plaintiff. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and the case was appealed to the New York State Court of Appeals.
In a 6-1 decision the New York State Court of Appeals affirmed the appellate court after determining there was no unlawful conduct on the part of defendant, Enterprise or Progress. The opinion began with an affirmation of the right to work and the right to contract in employment. Employees and employers mutually agree regarding the terms and conditions of employment – work, refusal to work, hiring and discharge are all done at will, unless otherwise decided by a contract freely agreed to by both the worker and the employer. Furthermore, the Court said, “[w]hatever one man may do alone, he may do in combination with others, provided they have no unlawful object in view.”
The motive of the defendant organization in threatening to strike or striking was the deciding factor for the Court. “[I]f an organization strikes to help its members, the strike is lawful. If its purpose be merely to injure non-members, it is unlawful.” In this case, the purpose of defendant’s threats and actions was to benefit its members by securing employment for them. The right to strike is often used for this purpose. In addition, the Court was persuaded by the fact the Enterprise and Progress restricted its membership to those steamfitters who passed a qualifying exam. Defendant’s motive to have their members work without non-member workers was believable and understandable, particularly since the law at the time saved employers from responsibility to workers injured through the carelessness of a co-workers.
The dissenting judge disagreed, believing that “labor should be regulated by the law of competition” and any combination or conspiracy to restrain trade and interfere with the free pursuit of lawful business or employment is unlawful. While agreeing that labor organizations have a right to secure benefits for their members through persuasion, using force or threats to injure other workmen is not permissable. “Competition in the labor market is lawful, but a combination to shut workmen out of the market altogether is unlawful.” Such a combination interferes with competition and deprives men of both liberty and property.
Learning Activities
Terms to Know
· combination and conspiracy
· enjoin
Compare and Contrast
Unlike In re Debs (158 U.S. 564 (1895)) and most other labor-related cases, Cumming does not involve a controversy between employer and employee but between different labor organizations.
1. Compare the New York State Court of Appeals reading of the right to contract in Cumming with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of that same right in In re Debs.
2. In In re Debs the United States Supreme Court found that the general welfare of the country outweighed the railroad workers’ right to strike. If the workers in Cumming were involved in an industry more crucial to the general welfare, like transportation, do you think the court would have ruled differently?
Critical Thinking
In Cumming, the Court of Appeals came down strongly on the rights of individuals to contract, to work and to organize in labor unions. The opinion states: “ The terms of employment are subject to mutual agreement, without let or hindrance from any one.” But this is not entirely true today. Give some examples of how the right to contract is not absolute today.