Recent Developments in Labor Law

Boston College Law Review Volume 5 | Issue 3 Article 15 4-1-1964 Recent Developments in Labor Law Edward Bograd Nelson G. Ross Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation Edward Bograd & Nelson G. Ross, Recent Developments in Labor Law, 5 B.C.L. Rev. 629 (1964), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ bclr/vol5/iss3/15 This Student Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact . STUDENT COMMENTS RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN LABOR LAW . INTRODUCTION This article represents the third annual comment dealing with recent developments in the field of national labor law.* The objective of this comment is to explore and analyze in terms of their impact upon existing doctrines, what the writers believe to be the most significant decisions of the National Labor Relations Board and ithe United States courts. The cases selected were those which were felt to most clearly represent significant departures in policy application of the Labor Management Relations Act. In emphasizing the doctrinal changes in the areas of principal concern under the LMRA, the article has 'been segmented into four primary categories: jurisdiction, enforcement of collective bargaining agreements under section 301, organizational and representational activities and unfair labor practices. JURISDICTION . 1 PREEMPTION OF EMPLOYEE-UNION DISPUTES BY NLRA The United States Supreme Court decided International Ass'n of Machinists v. Gonzales' in 1957. The Court ruled that the NLRA did not preempt state jurisdiction to order reinstatement of an illegally expelled union member and to order consequential damages for loss of wages and suffering due to his resultant loss of employment. The Court, relying upon United Constr. Workers v. Laburnum Constr. Corp., 2 held that whether the action sounded in tort or contract, state jurisdiction is not displaced simply because a coincidence of facts indicate that there may be a plausible proceeding before the NLRB, when the possibility of conflict with federal policy is remote. Subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court have severely limited application of the Gonzales "remote possibility" exception. In the term following Gonzales, the Supreme Court decided San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon . 3 Unlike Gonzales, Garmon involved a suit by a nonunion employer against a union for damages resulting from picketing proscribed by state law. The Court announced that when conduct is "arguably" protected by section 7 or prohibited by section 8 of the Act, due regard for federal policy requires that state jurisdiction yield. The Court further stated that a different result is not required because the • For an extensive discussion of the 1961 developments, see Comment, Labor Law's New Frontier: The End of the Per Se Rules, 3 B.C. Ind. & Corn. L. Rev. 487 (1962); for an extensive discussion of the 1962 developments, see Comment, Recent Developments in Labor Law, 4 B.C. Ind. & Corn. L. Rev. 661 (1963). 1 356 U.S. 617 ( 195 8). 2 347 U.S. 656 (1954). The employer sued three labor organizations in tort for damages. The Court held that although the "conduct" in question constituted an unfair labor practice, state jurisdiction was not precluded since Congress had not prescribed procedure to remedy consequences of tortious conduct already committed. The rationale of this case was overruled by Garmon, infra note 3. 8 359 U.S. 236 (1958). 629 BOSTON COLLEGE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW relief sought is damages, since the concern of the Court is in "delimiting areas of conduct which must be free from state regulation if national policy is to be left unhampered."' (Emphasis supplied.) The Court distinguished Gonzales as involving conduct of "merely peripheral concern" to the national act.5 In June 1963, the Supreme Court handed down two decisions which further defined the extent to which the federal act has preempted state jurisdiction. Both Local 100, United Ass'n of Journeymen of Plumbers v. Borden° and Local 207, lnt'l Ass'n of Bridge Workers v. Perko 7 dealt with the principles laid down in Gonzales and Garmon. Both cases involved interference by a union with an expelled member's employment rights, conduct arguably prohibited by the NLRA. The injured workers in both cases sued the union in a state court for damages for tortious interference with their right to contract and to pursue their lawful occupation. In addition, the plaintiff in Borden alleged a breach of an implied promise not to discriminate unfairly or to deny any member the right to work. In upholding the unions' contentions that the national act preempted state jurisdiction, the Court distinguished Gonzales as involving equitable relief directed at reinstatement in the union of an illegally expelled member and not, as here, involving an interference with the individual's employment opportunity. The Court noted that unlike Gonzales, "no specific equitable relief was sought directed to Borden's status in the union, and thus there was no state remedy to `fill out' by permitting the award of consequential damages. The 'crux' of the action (Gonzales .. .) concerned Borden's employment relations and involved conduct arguably subject to the Board's jurisdiction." 8 It would appear from the decisions in Garmon, Perko and Borden, that Gonzales must be limited strictly to its facts. State jurisdiction to provide relief is not foreclosed provided the "conduct" involved is solely of an internal union nature. If the "conduct" involves interferences with the aggrieved party's employment rights, exclusive jurisdiction must reside in the National Labor Relations Board. This conclusion is warranted if one considers that the national act is designed to regulate employer-union relations and not internal union affairs. 2. PREEMPTION OF PUBLIC UTILITY ANTI-STRIKE LAW BY NLRA The Supreme Court recently had occasion to rule upon the validity of the Missouri Public Utility Anti-Strike Law (King-Thompson Act) . 8 The Court in deciding Street Elec. Ry. and Motor Coach Employees v. Missouri,'° held that the Missouri statute authorizing state seizure of privately owned public utilities where the "public interest" so requires," and auId. at 246. Id. at 243. 373 U.S. 690 (1963). 7 373 U.S. 701 (1963). 8 Supra note 6, at 697. 9 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 295.10-.210 (1959). 10 374 U.S. 74 (1963); Note, 5 B.C. Ind. & Corn. L. Rev. 196 (1963). 11 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 295.180(1) (1959) authorizes the Governor, where a strike . threatens to impair the operation of the utility so as to interfere with the public 4 0 630 STUDENT COMMENTS thorizing the issuance of injunctions against strikes after seizuren conflicts with the federally g (...truncated)