|
|
Labor Board v. Drivers Local Union, 362 U.S. 274 (1960)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Labor Board v. Drivers Local Union, 362 U.S. 274 (1960)
Labor Board v. Drivers, Chauffeurs, Helpers, Local Union No. 639, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America No. 34 Argued January 14, 1960 Decided March 28, 1960 362 U.S. 274
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Peaceful picketing by a labor union, which does not represent a majority of the employees, to compel the employer to recognize the union as the exclusive bargaining agent of its employees, is not conduct of the union "to restrain or coerce" the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and therefore such picketing is not an unfair labor practice under § 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, as added by the Taft-Hartley Act. Pp. 275-292.
(a) Section 13 of the Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, is a command of Congress to the courts to resolve doubts and ambiguities in favor of an interpretation of § 8(b)(1)(A) which safeguards the right to strike as understood prior to passage of the Taft-Hartley Act. Pp. 281-282.
(b) Section 8(b)(l)(A) does not vest broad power in the Labor Board to sit in judgment upon, and to condemn, a minority union’s resort to a specific economic weapon such as peaceful picketing. It is a limited grant of power to proceed against union tactics involving violence, intimidation and reprisal, or threats thereof -- conduct involving more than the general pressures implicit in economic strikes. Pp. 282-290.
(c) In the Taft-Hartley Act, Congress authorized the Board to regulate peaceful "recognitional" picketing only when it is employed to accomplish objectives specified in § 8(b)(4). P. 290.
107 U.S. App.D.C. 42, 274 F.2d 551, affirmed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Labor Board v. Drivers Local Union, 362 U.S. 274 (1960) in 362 U.S. 274 362 U.S. 275. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GVVDR71SJ6TDBVN.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Labor Board v. Drivers Local Union, 362 U.S. 274 (1960), in 362 U.S. 274, page 362 U.S. 275. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GVVDR71SJ6TDBVN.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Labor Board v. Drivers Local Union, 362 U.S. 274 (1960). cited in 1960, 362 U.S. 274, pp.362 U.S. 275. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GVVDR71SJ6TDBVN.
|