Antitrust Status of Farmer Cooperatives: - USDA Rural Development ...

to refrain from purchasing such product from boats outside the
association. Although some of the boats were owned by the
processor s, all captains and crew working on association boats were
paid a percentage of the value of each catch delivered to a processor
(after the boat owner was reimbursed for fuel, food, and certain other
operating expenses). Each boat fished when and where the captain
chose and if the boat had a bad day neither the captain nor the crew
got paid.
The transfer price for the catch was established according to
schedules agreed to by the association and the packers and canners.
At the trial, conflicting evidence was presented as to whether prices
were established solely by the association or through discussion and
negotiation with the processors.
The association probably attracted the Government' s attention in
1951, when several hundred members picketed the docks in
Pascagoula and forcefully prevented out-of-State fishermen from
selling their shrimp catches to local packers. At trial, the Government
also introduced evidence of the association coercing nonmember
fishermen to join the association and boycotting buyers who didn't
conform to association wishes.
The Government asserted that the fishermen were independent
contractors engaged in price fixing with the packers and canners who
purchased their catch. The defendants asserted they were a labor
union of employees selling their services and the use of their vessels
and equipment at wages determined at so many cents per pound of
shrimp and oysters delivered. The jury was instructed that if it found
the association was a union, then any talks with the packers and
canners were protected negotiations over wages and other terms of
employment. A jury found the defendants guilty of violating the
Sherman Act.
The fishermen appealed the convictions but were unsuccessful for
two reasons. First, the court, citing Columbia River Packers
Association v. Hinton, held the fishermen had not proven that they
were engaged in a "labor dispute" with the processors under the
Norris-LaGuardia Act. Second, the court rejected a modest attempt by
the fishermen to claim protection under the Fisherman's Collective
Marketing Act. It did not dwell on the intent and scope of the law. It
simply concluded that the fishermens' repeated use of coercive meth-
296