Legal Opinion · Dissent

Butte Miners' Union No. 1 v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.

Montana Supreme Court

Decided September 27, 1941No. 8,157Published

1Dissent

Mr. Justice Morris:

I dissent. The bone of contention between the plaintiffs and defendant here is as to how the eight-hour period phrase of section 3071 shall be construed. Plaintiffs contend that that phrase means from ‘ ‘ collar to collar. ’ ’ The accepted meaning of “collar to collar” in this connection is that the eight hours shall begin from the time the miners arrive at the mouth of the tunnel, portal or shaft of the mine and end when they are returned to the mouth of the mine, after completing their eight-hour shift. The defendant contends that the eight hours means eight hours work…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Railroad v. International Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. United Shoe MacHinery Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  3. Hanover Fire Insurance v. HardingSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  4. United States v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
  5. Great Northern Utilities Co. v. Public Service CommissionMontana Supreme Court · 1930

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API