Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-101 (2026)

Combination of employees for peaceable objects lawful

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is not unlawful for any two or more persons to unite, combine, or agree in any manner, to advise or encourage, by peaceable means, any persons to enter into any combination in relation to entering into or remaining in the employment of any person or corporation, or in relation to the amount of wages or compensation to be paid for labor, or for the purpose of regulating the hours of labor, or for the procuring of fair and just treatment from employers, or for the purpose of aiding and protecting their welfare and interests in any other manner not in violation of the constitution of this state or the laws made in pursuance thereof. This section shall not be so construed as to permit two or more persons, by threats of either bodily or financial injury, or by any display of force, to prevent or intimidate any other person from continuing in such employment as he may see fit, or to boycott or intimidate any employer of labor.

Source: L. 1889: p. 92, § 1. R.S. 08: § 3924. C.L. § 4150. CSA: C. 97, § 64. CRS 53: § 80-4-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 80-11-1.

Cross references: For unfair labor practices, see § 8-3-108.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1989–1992 · leading case: Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez Sch. Dist. Re-1, 841 P.2d 237 (Colo. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez Sch. Dist. Re-1, 841 P.2d 237 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 28× “In late 1984, the district court granted a pre-trial motion by the teachers, and ruled that the strike was legal under §§ 8-2-101 and 8-1-126, 3B C.R.S. (1986).”

Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez Sch. Dist. RE-1, 809 P.2d 1010 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6× “The trial court ruled, during pre-trial motions, that the strike was lawful under §§ 8-2-101 and 8-1-126, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.”

Thayer v. McDonald, 781 P.2d 190 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). “Thereafter, plaintiffs commenced this action claiming that Jonny was wrongfully discharged for exercising his Colorado statutory right under § 8-2-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.