1. The company sought to secure a "closed nonunion shop" through individual agreements with employees and the union sought a "closed union shop" through a collective agreement with the union. Why do you think the court upheld the right of the company against the right of the union?
2. The union's illegal activity was the threatened strike. The company also threatened economic sanctions by only employing those who were not union members. Why was the union's activities considered coercive and the company's not?
3. An injunction is usually issued to prevent an injury that could not be adequately compensated for after the fact. If the union had succeeded in organizing a strike that resulted in a loss of profits for the company, why could the company not have recovered its damages?