|
|
Typographical Union v. Labor Board, 365 U.S. 705 (1961)
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.
Typographical Union v. Labor Board, 365 U.S. 705 (1961)
International typographical Union, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board No. 340 Argued March 1, 1961 Decided April 17, 1961 365 U.S. 705
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Syllabus
In collective bargaining negotiations, two unions demanded that the agreement require the employers to comply with union rules "not in conflict with" federal law and that foremen must be union members and do the hiring, but that they should be responsible only to the employers. Union insistence upon these demands led to a deadlock in the negotiations and a strike. The employers filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board, which found that (1) the demand for a contract including these requirements was a refusal to bargain within the meaning of § 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, (2) striking to force acceptance of those requirements was an attempt to make the employers discriminate in favor of union members contrary to § 8(b)(2), and (3) striking for the "foreman clause" was restraining and coercing the employers in the selection of their representatives for the adjustment of grievances in violation of § 8(b)(1)(B).
Held:
1. The proposed requirement that employers comply with union rules "not in conflict with" federal law was not unlawful per se.Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co., ante, p. 695. P. 707.
2. As to whether the strike to obtain the "foreman clause" was permissible, the Court is equally divided; and the judgment of the Court of Appeals enforcing the Board’s order on that phase of the controversy is affirmed. P. 707.
278 F.2d 6, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Typographical Union v. Labor Board, 365 U.S. 705 (1961) in 365 U.S. 705 365 U.S. 706. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YPGQ7EV27KAX13H.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Typographical Union v. Labor Board, 365 U.S. 705 (1961), in 365 U.S. 705, page 365 U.S. 706. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YPGQ7EV27KAX13H.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Typographical Union v. Labor Board, 365 U.S. 705 (1961). cited in 1961, 365 U.S. 705, pp.365 U.S. 706. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YPGQ7EV27KAX13H.
|