Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/339/454
Timestamp: 2013-12-10 17:17:13
Document Index: 423814875

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 1', '§ 8', '§ 151', '§ 141', '§ 141', '§ 8', '§ 158', '§ 8', '§ 158', '§ 8', '§ 203', '§ 173', '§ 202', '§ 172', '§ 2']

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O., et al. v. O'BRIEN, Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney, et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute
Supreme Court aboutsearch liibulletin subscribe previews INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O., et al. v. O'BRIEN, Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney, et al.
339 U.S. 454 (70 S.Ct. 781, 94 L.Ed. 978)
Argued: March 30, 1950.
[HTML] Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellants.
is before us in this case. Appellants struck against Chrysler Corporation in May, 1948, without conforming to the prescribed state procedure. The strike was called to enforce demands for higher wages, and it was conducted peacefully. To enjoin possible criminal prosecution,
appellants instituted this suit in the state courts, contending that the statute violated the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the Federal Constitution, Amend. 14; art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. The trial court upheld their contentions but the Michigan Supreme Court reversed. 1949, 325 Mich. 250, 38 N.W.2d 421. We find no need to discuss the due process point, inasmuch as we hold that the court below erred in its decision on the commerce power.
Congress has not been silent on the subject of strikes in interstate commerce. In the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C. 151, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C.(Supp. III) § 141, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141, et seq., Congress safeguarded the exercise by employees of 'concerted activities' and expressly recognized the right to strike.
It qualified and regulated that right in the 1947 Act. It established certain prerequisites, with which appellants complied, for any strike over contract termination or modification. § 8(d), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(d). These include notices to both state and federal
mediation authorities; both did participate in the negotiations in this case. In provisions which did not affect appellants, Congress forbade strikes for certain objectives and detailed procedures for strikes which might create a national emergency. §§ 8(b)(4), 206210, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 158(b)(4), 176180. None of these sections can be read as permitting concurrent state regulation of peaceful strikes for higher wages. Congress occupied this field and closed it to state regulation. Plankinton Packing Co. v. Wisconsin Board, 1950, 338 U.S. 953, 70 S.Ct. 491; LaCrosse Telephone Corp. v. Wisconsin Board, 1949, 336 U.S. 18, 69 S.Ct. 379; Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New York Labor Board, 1947, 330 U.S. 767, 67 S.Ct. 1026, 91 L.Ed. 1234; Hill v. State of Florida ex rel. Watson, 1945, 325 U.S. 538, 65 S.Ct. 1373, 89 L.Ed. 1782.
Even if some state legislation in this area could be sustained, the particular statute before us could not stand. For it conflicts with the federal Act. The Michigan law calls for a notice given 'In the event the parties * * * are unable to settle any dispute' to be followed by mediation, and if that is unsuccessful, by a strike vote within twenty days, with a majority required to authorize a strike. Under the federal legislation, the prescribed strike notice can be given sixty days before the contract termination or modification. § 8(d). The federal Act thus permits strikes at a different and usually earlier time than the Michigan law; and it does not require majority authorization for any strike. This requirement of approval by a majority of the employees was contained in the Bill which passed the House of Representatives;
but the Act as finally adopted deliberately refrains from imposing the prerequisite of majority approval in each of its references to strike votes. §§ 203(c), 209(b)210, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 173(c), 179(b)180.
Congress created a new federal agency, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, to assist in the peaceful settlement of disputes. §§ 202204, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 172174.
H.R. 3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. § 2(11)(B)(vi)(h) (1947). The legislative history demonstrates that this proposal was rejected on the merits, and not because of any desire to leave the states free to adopt it. See, e.g., H.R.Rep.No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 3435 (1947); testimony of Governor Stassen, Hearings before Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on S. 55 and S.J. Res. 22, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 56265, 57278, 58689 (1947).