LABOR LAW-LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT-RELATIONSHIP OF REMEDIES UNDER TITLE I AND TITLE III

Authors

Wendell B. Will S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Petitioner, a local of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, established a picket line at respondent's lumber mill and notified other locals to refuse to unload respondent's products. Petitioner sought to force respondent to assign certain jobs to its men. Respondent's policy had been to use its own employees for the disputed work. As a result of petitioner's action respondent was forced to suspend its operations. Respondent filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB alleging union violation of section 8(b)(4)(D) of the LMRA. After some time the NLRB determined that petitioner's men were not entitled to the disputed jobs and later filed a cease and desist order. In the meantime respondent brought suit in a district court under section 303(a)(4) of the LMRA. $750,000 was awarded as damages from the date of the original picketing. On appeal the court of appeals affirmed the judgment and denied petitioner's contention that the district court could not render damages covering the period of time before the union's activity had been declared illegal by the NLRB. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, affirmed. The remedies under title I and title III of the LMRA are mutually exclusive. Success under section 303(a)(4) is not dependent upon a prior NLRB determination that an unfair labor practice has been committed. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union v. Juneau Spruce Corporation, 342 U.S. 237, 72 S.Ct. 235 (1952).

Recommended Citation

Wendell B. Will S.Ed., LABOR LAW-LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT-RELATIONSHIP OF REMEDIES UNDER TITLE I AND TITLE III, 51 Mich. L. Rev. 307 (1952).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol51/iss2/17