In justifying their act of blocking the gates of the employer, the strikers stated that they did so only for collective self-defense because the guards of the employer used unnecessary force in dispersing them. Was this justification accepted by the Court?
The union members in this case claimed that their employer interfered with their union activities. Did the Supreme Court believe their claim?
What happens when strikers defy assumption or certification orders?
Will the sole presence of a lawful purpose suffice in a strike?
