Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842) was a landmark legal decision issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the subject of labor unions. Before this decision, based on Commonwealth v. Pullis, labor unions which attempted to 'close' or create a unionized workplace could be charged with conspiracy. However, in March 1842, Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that unions were legal organizations and had the right to organize a strike.
Contents |
In 1839, the Boston Journeymen Bootmakers' Society called a strike against all employers who hired non-union members. The leaders of the society, including one Mr. Hunt, were arrested and charged with conspiracy. Mr. Hunt's defense was that the union's attempted organization and strike was in fact lawful.
The municipal courts for Boston found all the defendants guilty, but on appeal, argued by the radical defense attorney Robert Rantoul, Chief Justice Shaw declared that the act of unionization and recognition of that union through strike was legal unless the methods to coerce workers to strike were illegal. Since no threat of force was posed by the union, Shaw sided with the defendants and the Court went with him. The Court established that trade unions were not necessarily criminal or conspiring organizations if they did not advocate violence or illegal activities in their attempts to gain recognition through striking.
Commonwealth v. Hunt legalized the existence of trade organizations, though trade unions would continue to be harassed legally through anti-trust suits and injunctions. The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 and the Wagner Act of 1935 recognized labor's right to organize unions, but unions were not fully recognized as legal until later on. Though judges throughout the decade would become more anti-union, Commonwealth v. Hunt served as a legitimizer for trade unions.[1] made illegal injunctions, yellow dog contracts and, the criminal conspiracy doctrine