New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.
 | |
| New Negro Alliance v. Santiary Grocery Co. | |
| Reference: 303 U.S. 552 | |
| Term: 1938 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: March 2-3, 1938 Decided: March 28, 1938 | |
| Outcome | |
| United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed | |
| Majority | |
| Owen Josephus Roberts • Charles E. Hughes • Louis Brandeis • Harlan Fiske Stone • Hugo Black • Stanley Reed | |
| Dissenting | |
| James Clark McReynolds • Pierce Butler | |
New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co. is a case decided on March 28, 1938, by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932 prohibits employers from proscribing the peaceful dissemination of information concerning the terms and conditions of employment by those involved in an active labor dispute. The case concerned whether the courts had jurisdiction to issue an injunction over a labor dispute. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[1][2]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in this case established that the Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932 prohibits employers from proscribing the peaceful dissemination of information concerning the terms and conditions of employment by those involved in an active labor dispute. To read more about the impact of New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co. click here.
Background
The New Negro Alliance organized and requested for Sanitary Grocery Company to adopt policies of employing Black grocery clerks. In particular, the association aimed to have Black grocery clerks employed in stores that were patronized by a majority Black population and that currently had no Black employees. Sanitary Grocery Company denied the request, and the association responded by placing a sign outside the store that stated, "Do Your Part! Buy Where You Work! No Negroes Employed Here."[2]
The grocery company sought an injunction to prohibit members of the association from picketing outside the stores. A trial court ruled that the dispute was not a labor dispute by definition of the Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932, which authorized the court to issue the injunction. This decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Members of the New Negro Alliance filed a writ of certiorari for the decision to be reviewed.[1]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held between March 2, 1938, and March 3, 1938. The case was decided on March 28, 1938.[2]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided 6-2 to reverse the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Justice Owen Josephus Roberts delivered the opinion of the court. Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Pierce Butler. Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo did not participate in the decision of the case.[2]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
Justice Owen Josephus Roberts, writing for the court, argued that the dispute between the New Negro Alliance and the Sanitary Grocery Company should have been classified as a labor dispute, by definition of the Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932.[2]
| “ | The Act does not concern itself with the background or the motives of the dispute. The desire for fair and equitable conditions of employment on the part of persons of any race, color, or persuasion, and the removal of discriminations against them by reason of their race or religious beliefs is quite as important to those concerned as fairness and equity in terms and conditions of employment can be to trade or craft unions or any form of labor organization or association. Race discrimination by an employer may reasonably be deemed more unfair and less excusable than discrimination against workers on the ground of union affiliation. There is no justification in the apparent purposes or the express terms of the Act for limiting its definition of labor disputes and cases arising therefrom by excluding those which arise with respect to discrimination in terms and conditions of employment based upon differences of race or color. [3] | ” |
| —Owen Josephus Roberts, majority opinion in New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.[2] | ||
After establishing that the dispute was a labor dispute, Roberts concluded that the court did not have the jurisdiction to issue an injunction because federal courts do not have the authority to issue injunctions against any labor dispute.
| “ | The purpose and policy of the Act respecting the jurisdiction of the federal courts is set forth in §§ 4 and 7. The former deprives those courts of jurisdiction to issue an injunction against, inter alia, giving publicity to the existence of, or the facts involved in, any labor dispute, whether by advertising, speaking, patrolling, or by any other method not involving fraud or violence; against assembling peaceably to act or to organize to act in promotion of their interests in a labor dispute; against advising or notifying any person of an intention to do any of the acts specified; against agreeing with other persons to do any of the acts specified. [Footnote 4] Section 7 deprives the courts of jurisdiction to issue an injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except after hearing sworn testimony in open court in support of the allegations of the complaint, and upon findings of fact to the effect (a) that unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed unless restrained, or have been committed and will be continued, unless restrained, and then only against the person or persons, association or organization making the threat or permitting the unlawful act or authorizing or ratifying it; (b) that substantial and irreparable injury to complainant's property will follow; (c) that, as to each item of relief granted, greater injury will be inflicted upon the complainant by denial of the relief than will be inflicted on the defendant by granting it; (d) that complainant has no adequate remedy at law; and (e) that the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant's property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.[3] | ” |
| —Owen Josephus Roberts, majority opinion in New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.[2] | ||
Dissenting opinion
Justice James Clark McReynolds, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Pierce Butler, argued that the court's view of the definition of labor dispute was inaccurate. McReynolds posited that courts should have the authority to protect individual liberty and safeguard employers who prefer to hire individuals of a particular race.[2]
| “ | MR. JUSTICE BUTLER and I cannot accept the view that a 'labor dispute' emerges whenever an employer fails to respond to a communication from A, B, and C -- irrespective of their race, character, reputation, fitness, previous or present employment-suggesting displeasure because of his choice of employees and their expectation that in the future he will not fail to select men of their complexion.
It seems unbelievable that, in all such circumstances, Congress intended to inhibit courts from extending protection long guaranteed by law and thus, in effect, encourage mobbish interference with the individual's liberty of action. Under the tortured meaning now attributed to the words 'labor dispute,' no employer -- merchant, manufacturer, builder, cobbler, housekeeper or whatnot -- who prefers helpers of one color or class can find adequate safeguard against intolerable violations of his freedom if members of some other class, religion, race, or color demand that he give them precedence. [3] |
” |
| —James Clark McReynolds, dissenting opinion in New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.[2] | ||
Impact
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co. established that the Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932 prohibits employers from proscribing the peaceful dissemination of information concerning the terms and conditions of employment by those involved in an active labor dispute, even when such dissemination occurs on an employer's private property.[1][2]
See also
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 LexisNexis, "New Negro All. v. Sanitary Grocery Co. - 303 U.S. 552, 58 S. Ct. 703 (1938)," accessed June 30, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Justia, "New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552 (1938)," accessed June 30, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
