15 U.S.C. § 17
Antitrust laws not applicable to labor organizations
The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 297
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1927–2024 · leading case: Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224 (E.D. Cal. 1985).
Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224 (E.D. Cal. 1985). “In response to such constructions of the Sherman Act, and in an effort to secure labor peace, the Congress in 1914 enacted sections 6 and 20 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 17 and 29 U.S.C. § 52 , to exempt labor organizations and certain of their activities from the reach of…”
H. A. Artists & Assocs., Inc. v. Actors' Equity Ass'n, 451 U.S. 704 (1981). “Section 6 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 17 , declares that human labor "is not a commodity or article of commerce," and immunizes from antitrust liability labor organizations *714 and their members "lawfully carrying out" their "legitimate object[ives].”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Sys., Inc., 465 U.S. 822 (1984). “15 U. S. C. § 17 ; 29 U. S. C. § 52 . [11] There followed, in 1932, the Norris-La Guardia Act, which declared that "the individual .”
Nat'l Broiler Mktg. Ass'n v. United States, 436 U.S. 816 (1978). “731 , 15 U. S. C. § 17 (1976 ed.). [14] This treatment, however, had proved to be inadequate.”
Retail Prop. Trust v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2014). “2102 ; see also 15 U.S.C. § 17 (“Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor .”
United States v. Patrick W. Hanigan, 681 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 1982). “Thus the first issue we must address is whether the movement of laborers into this country is “commerce” within the scope of the Hobbs Act.”
Mid-Am. Reg'l Bargaining Ass'n v. Will Cnty. Carpenters Dist. Council, 675 F.2d 881 (7th Cir. 1982). “The court found that the only direct restraint alleged in the complaint was a restraint in the market for human labor.”
Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996). “731 and 738, 15 U. S. C. § 17 and 29 U. S. C. § 52 , and the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat.”
California Ex Rel. Harris v. Safeway, Inc., 651 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2011). “, dissenting and concurring); see also 15 U.S.C. § 17 (“The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce.”
Connell Constr. Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 100, 421 U.S. 616 (1975). “731 and 738, 15 U. S. C. § 17 and 29 U. S. C. § 52 , and the Norris-La Guardia Act, 47 Stat.”
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U.S. 186 (1974). “By the same token, however, there is no objection to use, in appropriate cases, of summary judgment procedure to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the interstate commerce elements.”
Deborah Baker & Richard Enyeart v. Ibp, Inc., 357 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2004). “To see the limited effect of Garmon on activity that affects the size of the labor pool, and thus the outcome of bargaining over wages, consider claims under the antitrust law that particular activities have unduly raised (or depressed) the price of labor and of goods made with…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 17(a) — 1 case
Jenkins v. Golf Channel, 714 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
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.