How did employers utilize the Sherman Anti-Trust Act against unions?

Employers utilized the Sherman Anti-Trust Act primarily to obtain injunctions against unions, which refers to court orders that prohibited union activities deemed harmful to business operations. The Act was originally intended to prevent anti-competitive practices in business, but many employers interpreted it as a tool to suppress labor activities. By arguing that unions were conspiracies that restrained trade, employers sought judicial support to clamp down on strikes, picketing, and other collective efforts by workers. This legal maneuvering emphasized the Act's dual potential: while it was targeted at monopolies in commerce, its language also enabled companies to challenge unions and limit workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively.

The other options, while relevant in historical context, do not accurately represent the direct use of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The Act did not explicitly outlaw unions, nor was it specifically designed to promote yellow dog contracts (contracts that prevented workers from joining unions), although these contracts were indeed employed by some employers during that era. Thus, the correct focus is on how the Act facilitated legal actions against union activities through injunctions.