## Facts

- Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) Welfare and Retirement Fund sued James M. Pennington and partners (small coal operators) for unpaid royalties allegedly due under the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1950, as amended.
- The small operators filed a Sherman Act cross-claim alleging that the UMWA, the trustees, and certain large coal companies conspired to drive small operators from the market and restrain or monopolize interstate coal commerce.
- Alleged means included imposing uniform wage terms and increased fund royalties on all operators regardless of ability to pay, excluding nonunion coal from markets, and pressuring refusals to lease lands to or trade with nonunion operators.
- The cross-claim also alleged coordinated efforts to influence government action, including seeking a higher Walsh–Healey Act minimum wage for coal in federal procurement and urging the Tennessee Valley Authority to curtail certain “spot market” purchases.
- A jury found for the small operators against the UMWA and the trustees on the antitrust claim; the trial court set aside the verdict as to the trustees but allowed the verdict to stand against the union.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the antitrust judgment against the UMWA; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a union is exempt from Sherman Act liability when it agrees with a group of employers to secure uniform labor standards across an industry in a manner affecting competing employers.
2. Whether joint efforts by a union and employers to influence public officials can support antitrust liability and related damages.
3. Whether the jury instructions and damage theory improperly allowed recovery for harm attributable solely to governmental decisions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that union-employer bargaining over wages is not automatically immune from antitrust scrutiny where the union agrees with a group of employers to impose a wage scale on other bargaining units as part of a scheme to restrain competition.
- The Court held that concerted petitioning of public officials is immune from antitrust liability; damages must exclude injuries caused solely by governmental action taken in response to such petitioning.
- Because the jury was not properly instructed to segregate immune government-petitioning conduct and to exclude government-caused damages, the verdict could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- A union may seek uniform wage terms from multiple employers, but it forfeits labor-exemption protection when it combines with certain employers to impose wage standards on other employers or bargaining units to curtail competition.
- Collective bargaining on mandatory subjects (including wages) does not confer automatic Sherman Act immunity on union-employer agreements that function as a market-restraining combination.
- Joint efforts to influence executive or agency action are generally immune from Sherman Act liability, even if intended to harm competitors.
- In antitrust cases involving petitioning activity, factfinders must exclude damages attributable solely to independent governmental determinations responding to that petitioning.

## Conclusion

The Court limited labor-related antitrust immunity by holding that a union may be liable when it conspires with employers to impose wage standards on rival employers to restrain competition, while reaffirming that joint lobbying of government is immune and cannot support damages for harm caused only by resulting governmental actions.


United Mine Workers of Am. v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965)