United Mine Workers v. Pennington

E666874

United Mine Workers v. Pennington is a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court antitrust case that examined whether a union’s collective bargaining activities with employers could be subject to Sherman Act liability.

All labels observed (2)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (45)

Predicate Object
instanceOf U.S. Supreme Court case
antitrust case
labor law case
affects scope of nonstatutory labor exemption to antitrust laws
areaOfLaw U.S. federal antitrust law
U.S. federal labor law
citation 381 U.S. 657
concernedActivity alleged conspiracy to eliminate competition among coal operators
collective bargaining over wage rates
concernedIndustry coal industry
concurringOpinionBy Justice Douglas
linked to: William Douglas
country United States
court Supreme Court of the United States
decisionDate 1965-04-05
decisionType majority decision with dissents
dissentingOpinionBy Justice Fortas
linked to: Abe Fortas

Justice Goldberg
Justice Harlan
linked to: John M. Harlan II

Justice Stewart
docketNumber No. 83
fullName United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington
holding A union and employers may be subject to Sherman Act liability when they combine to impose a wage scale intended to drive competitors out of business.
Union conduct is not automatically exempt from antitrust laws when it involves combinations with nonlabor groups to achieve anticompetitive objectives.
involvesParty Pennington
United Mine Workers of America
issue Whether a union’s collective bargaining activities with employers can be subject to Sherman Act liability.
jurisdiction federal question jurisdiction
legalSubject Clayton Act
Sherman Act
antitrust law
collective bargaining
labor law
nonstatutory labor exemption
majorityOpinionBy Justice White
pageInUnitedStatesReports 657
proceduralPosture appeal from the United States Court of Appeals
relatedCase Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3
Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader
Local 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea Co.
relatedDoctrine labor antitrust exemption
statuteInterpreted Clayton Act
Sherman Antitrust Act
subsequentCitationFrequency frequently cited
volumeOfUnitedStatesReports 381
yearDecided 1965

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (5)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited relatedCase United Mine Workers v. Pennington
Noerr-Pennington doctrine extendedInCase United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington
linked to: United Mine Workers v. Pennington
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. laterClarifiedBy United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington
linked to: United Mine Workers v. Pennington
United Mine Workers v. Pennington fullName United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington
linked to: United Mine Workers v. Pennington
City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc. relatedDoctrine United Mine Workers v. Pennington