Commonwealth v. Morrow

Last updated May 29, 2024

Commonwealth v. Morrow (1815) was a Pennsylvania decision by the Adjourned Court of Quarter Sessions for the County of Allegheny on the issue of Labor unionization. The jury in this case agreed that the master shoemakers, the journeymen, and the public, were endangered by the association of journeymen and returned a verdict of guilty on charges of conspiracy.^[1] The Pittsburgh Cordwainers and the Court's ruling on Commonwealth v. Morrow reaffirmed the Court's views on the earliest forms of American labor unionization —that activities performed by these unions were unlawful. Prosecutors summoned former members of the journeymen cordwainers and master journeymen, most of the owners of the shops. These witnesses provided accounts of collective bargaining, which drove nonmembers out of the work force by refusing to work with them. Defendants argued that every man has a right to determine his own desired wages and doing so as a collective unit was lawful. This court case established the formation of unions and its activities as unlawful, in the form of conspiracy. The legality of unions as a legitimate entity would be established 25 years later in Commonwealth v. Hunt, a Massachusetts Supreme Court Decision. Commonwealth v. Morrow, however, serves as an example of early unionization of workers in the United States, and the challenges it faced.

Background

In nearly all the major cities, shoemakers (cordwainers) and printers were among the first to form workingmen's societies; carpenters, masons, hatters, riggers, and tailors also found it worthwhile to organize.^[1] As the number of workers in manufacturing industries rose, so did their activities to organize for their benefit. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania accused George Morrow, along with 21 other members of the journeymen cordwainers, of "unlawfully, perniciously and deceitfully, designing and intending to form and unite themselves into an unlawful society for the purpose of unjustly raising the price of their wages and the wages of all journeymen cordwainers in Pittsburgh."^[2] The trial was held at an Adjourned Court of Quarter Sessions for the County of Allegheny at Pittsburgh on December 10, 1815, The counsel for the prosecution was Attorney General Samuel Douglas, along with Henry Baldwin and William Wilkins. The counsel for the defendants was Walter Forward and Parker Campbell.

Before the landmark decision in Commonwealth v. Hunt, several generations of Americans, including lawyers, judges and legislators, have been convinced by their teachers to believe that the most effective legal weapon against the struggling labor union was the doctrine that concerted activities were conspiracies, and for that reason, illegal.^[3]

Prosecution

Douglas argued that the indictment contained three counts. The first was for combining and conspiring together to form a society for purposes "highly prejudicial both to individuals and society in general." The second charge was the "formation of that society in pursuance of such confederacy." The third charge was the "acts resulting from that confederacy injurious to employers, to journeymen, to Pittsburgh, and the whole community.^[2] Witnesses for prosecution included former members of the journeymen cordwainers, such as Adam Moreland and John M. Phillips, and master cordwainers, such as Walter Glenn. Adam Moreland, one of the first members of the society testified, “the means we took to get our wages were a turn-out.., scabbing a shop is leaving it (society) and those who worked there after that were scabs.^[2] John M. Phillips, a relatively new resident of Pittsburgh and former member of the journeymen cordwainers, testified that the manner of joining the society involved putting a printed bill of wages in the Bible, and then swearing to work for no less wage than the bill contained."^[2] He further claimed that many members of the society, including himself, were compelled to take the oath or leave the society, and consequence was you would be expelled from the town…as no one would work or board with an expelled member."^[2] Walter Glenn employed 3 of the journeymen defendants (Mindeher, Meloney, and Hughes) along with his (Glenn's) brother. When Glenn declined to sign the turn-out and the new prices requested by Mindeher, Meloney, and Hughes, they all left him, including his brother. When asked to return to work week after turn-out, he said he could not work on account that he “would gain enemies by it or be found fault with him." He later testified that he was forced to dump $1100–$1200 worth of stock at one point as a result of the wage demands by the journeymen.^[2]

Defense

Walter Forward, counsel for the defendants, argued three main points. First, he argued, "every man has a right to affix his own prices to his own labors, and it was not a crime to have a uniform price for price they pleased for their work." Secondly he argued that the wage demands by the journeymen were reasonable and there were no proven charges of extortion. The third argument was the fact that journeymen wages, before the creation of such association, were too low and could not obtain fair price by any other means than the association."^[2] Mr. Moreland, in his earlier testimony, admits to this fact as being true.

Verdict

The jury in this case agreed that the master shoemakers, the journeymen, and the public were endangered by the association of journeymen and returned a verdict of guilty of conspiracy, although the court fined the defendants only $1 each, plus prosecution costs.

Implications

The early craft societies, mainly shoemakers and printers, were typically transitory. Cyclical economic downturns routinely dissolved worker collective actions, and wage reductions, though resisted, were common during downturns in the economy. Another deterrent to unionization came from court actions. Conservative judges, in their instructions to juries, contended that union action per se was illegal.^[1]Commonwealth v. Morrow was first of many of the legal cases that challenged the "common law police power maintained in many of the preceding cases."^[4] The case largely followed what had by now emerged as a normal pattern—prosecution disclaimers of hostility to the journeymen and promises of a light penalty.

The case was a breakthrough in that the court indicted the defendants, not for demanding high prices, but for employing unlawful means to extort those prices. It also redefined the definition of conspiracy as a "combination to effect an unlawful purpose or to effect a lawful purpose by unlawful means. Threats and violence would qualify as conspiracy, but not the simple act of writing and adopting a constitution or a collective refusal to work unless a nonmember were discharged.”^[4]

Commonwealth v. Morrow was one of the many cases that helped transform labor unionization from an act of conspiracy to legitimate means of personal expression. Over the next few years, the apparent precariousness of the journeymen's legal position would become somewhat qualified, as sum by the decline in the incidence of prosecution regarding unionization and collective bargaining of wages.

Related Research Articles

A trade union or labor union, often simply referred to as a union, is an organization of workers whose purpose is to maintain or improve the conditions of their employment, such as attaining better wages and benefits, improving working conditions, improving safety standards, establishing complaint procedures, developing rules governing status of employees and protecting and increasing the bargaining power of workers.

Labour laws, labour code or employment laws are those that mediate the relationship between workers, employing entities, trade unions, and the government. Collective labour law relates to the tripartite relationship between employee, employer, and union.

The Nuremberg trials were held by the Allies against representatives of the defeated Nazi Germany for plotting and carrying out invasions of other countries across Europe and atrocities against their citizens in World War II.

Strike action, also called labor strike, labour strike and industrial action in British English, or simply strike, is a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances. Strikes became common during the Industrial Revolution, when mass labor became important in factories and mines. As striking became a more common practice, governments were often pushed to act. When government intervention occurred, it was rarely neutral or amicable. Early strikes were often deemed unlawful conspiracies or anti-competitive cartel action and many were subject to massive legal repression by state police, federal military power, and federal courts. Many Western nations legalized striking under certain conditions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Collective bargaining is a process of negotiation between employers and a group of employees aimed at agreements to regulate working salaries, working conditions, benefits, and other aspects of workers' compensation and rights for workers. The interests of the employees are commonly presented by representatives of a trade union to which the employees belong. A collective agreement reached by these negotiations functions as a labour contract between an employer and one or more unions, and typically establishes terms regarding wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms, and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs. Such agreements can also include 'productivity bargaining' in which workers agree to changes to working practices in return for higher pay or greater job security.

The nature and power of organized labor in the United States is the outcome of historical tensions among counter-acting forces involving workplace rights, wages, working hours, political expression, labor laws, and other working conditions. Organized unions and their umbrella labor federations such as the AFL–CIO and citywide federations have competed, evolved, merged, and split against a backdrop of changing values and priorities, and periodic federal government intervention.

United States labor law sets the rights and duties for employees, labor unions, and employers in the US. Labor law's basic aim is to remedy the "inequality of bargaining power" between employees and employers, especially employers "organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association". Over the 20th century, federal law created minimum social and economic rights, and encouraged state laws to go beyond the minimum to favor employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires a federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 but higher in 29 states and D.C., and discourages working weeks over 40 hours through time-and-a-half overtime pay. There are no federal laws, and few state laws, requiring paid holidays or paid family leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 creates a limited right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in larger employers. There is no automatic right to an occupational pension beyond federally guaranteed Social Security, but the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 requires standards of prudent management and good governance if employers agree to provide pensions, health plans or other benefits. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires employees have a safe system of work.

Lemuel Shaw was an American jurist who served as chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (1830–1860). Prior to his appointment he also served for several years in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and as a state senator. In 1847, Shaw became the father-in-law of author Herman Melville. He ruled on prominent cases involving slavery, segregation, and religion.

National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act. The case represented a major expansion in the Court's interpretation of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and effectively spelled the end to the Court's striking down of New Deal economic legislation.

The United States of America vs. Carl Krauch, et al., also known as the IG Farben Trial, was the sixth of the twelve trials for war crimes the U.S. authorities held in their occupation zone in Germany (Nuremberg) after the end of World War II. IG Farben was the private German chemicals company allied with the Nazis that manufactured the Zyklon B gas used to commit genocide against millions of European Jews in the Holocaust.

WorkChoices was the name given to changes made to the federal industrial relations laws in Australia by the Howard government in 2005, being amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 by the Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005, sometimes referred to as the Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005, that came into effect on 27 March 2006.

Economic torts, which are also called business torts, are torts that provide the common law rules on liability which arise out of business transactions such as interference with economic or business relationships and are likely to involve pure economic loss.

Commonwealth v. Hunt, 45 Mass. 111 (1842), was a case in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the subject of labor unions. Prior to Hunt the legality of labor combinations in America was uncertain. In March 1842, Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that labor combinations were legal provided that they were organized for a legal purpose and used legal means to achieve their goals.

Commonwealth v. Pullis, 3 Doc. Hist. 59 (1806), was a US labor law case, and the first reported case arising from a labor strike in the United States. It decided that striking workers were illegal conspirators.

Ex parte H.V. McKay, commonly referred to as the Harvester case, is a landmark Australian labour law decision of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The case arose under the Excise Tariff Act 1906 which imposed an excise duty on goods manufactured in Australia, £6 in the case of a stripper harvester, however if a manufacturer paid "fair and reasonable" wages to its employees, it was excused from paying the excise duty. The Court therefore had to consider what was a "fair and reasonable" wage for the purpose of the act.

The 1952 steel strike was a strike by the United Steelworkers of America (USWA) against U.S. Steel (USS) and nine other steelmakers. The strike was scheduled to begin on April 9, 1952, but US President Harry Truman nationalized the American steel industry hours before the workers walked out. The steel companies sued to regain control of their facilities. On June 2, 1952, in a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), that the President lacked the authority to seize the steel mills. The strike involved 560,000 workers.

History of labor law in the United States refers to the development of United States labor law, or legal relations between workers, their employers and trade unions in the United States of America.

R v Journeymen-Taylors of Cambridge (1721) 88 ER 9 is a labour law case, concerning the historical attitude of the common law to trade unions. It held that strike action amounted to an unlawful and criminal conspiracy. This attitude prevailed through the 19th century, until trade unions were made lawful by Parliament in the Trade Union Act 1871 and the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875. The Trade Disputes Act 1906 confirmed unions' legality at common law once more, and now the position is reflected in international law, particularly the ILO Convention No 87 and 98.

The 1927 Indiana bituminous strike was a strike by members of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) against local bituminous coal companies. Although the struggle raged throughout most of the nation's coal fields, its most serious impact was in western Pennsylvania, including Indiana County. The strike began on April 1, 1927, when almost 200,000 coal miners struck the coal mining companies operating in the Central Competitive Field, after the two sides could not reach an agreement on pay rates. The UMWA was attempting to retain pay raises gained in the contracts it had negotiated in 1922 and 1924, while management, stating that it was under economic pressure from competition with the West Virginia coal mines, was seeking wage reductions. The strike proved to be a disaster for the union, as by 1929, there were only 84,000 paying members of the union, down from 400,000 which belonged to the union in 1920.

The labour movement is the collective organisation of working people to further their shared political and economic interests. It consists of the trade union or labour union movement, as well as political parties of labour. It can be considered an instance of class conflict.

References

1 2 3 Walton, Gary M., and Hugh Rockoff. History of the American Economy. Mason, OH: South¬-Western/Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Documentary History of American Industrial Society, American Bureau of Industrial Research, Carnegie Institution of Washington. Edited by John R. Commons, Ulrich B. Phillips, Eugune A. Gilmore, Helen L. Sumner, and John B. Andrews. (pp. 20-23)
↑ Petro, Sylvester. "Unions and the Southern Courts: Part III- The Conspiracy and Tort Foundations of the Labor Injunction." North Carolina Law Review 60 (1982): 546-550. Print.
1 2 Law, labor, and ideology in the early American republic. Christopher L. Tomlins (pp. 142-143)

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[walton-1] 1 2 3 Walton, Gary M., and Hugh Rockoff. History of the American Economy. Mason, OH: South¬-Western/Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.

[bureau-2] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Documentary History of American Industrial Society, American Bureau of Industrial Research, Carnegie Institution of Washington. Edited by John R. Commons, Ulrich B. Phillips, Eugune A. Gilmore, Helen L. Sumner, and John B. Andrews. (pp. 20-23)

[petro-3] Petro, Sylvester. "Unions and the Southern Courts: Part III- The Conspiracy and Tort Foundations of the Labor Injunction." North Carolina Law Review 60 (1982): 546-550. Print.

[tomlins-4] 1 2 Law, labor, and ideology in the early American republic. Christopher L. Tomlins (pp. 142-143)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]