LABOR LAW-CLASS ACTION BY LABOR UNION MEMBERS TO ENFORCE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT-JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS

Authors

John Houck S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Plaintiff was an employee of defendant corporation, and an officer of the union accredited as bargaining agent. He brought an equity suit in the Ohio courts for specific enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement and to collect back wages, on behalf of himself and other union members similarly situated. The basis of the suit was section 11257 of the Ohio General Code, providing for class actions. The lower court dismissed the petition on the grounds of no jurisdiction under that section. On appeal, held, reversed. Although the defendant corporation's activities in interstate commerce subject it to federal labor legislation, neither the amended National Labor Relations Act nor the other provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, conferring jurisdiction over labor disputes upon the National Labor Relations Board and the federal courts, prevents a state equity suit for specific performance of a collective bargaining agreement. The provision of the latter act, allowing suit by an unincorporated labor organization as a legal entity, does not preclude a class suit in either federal or state courts. The suit was properly brought under the Ohio class suit provision. Masetta v. National Bronze and Aluminum Foundry Co., (Ohio App. 1952) 107 N.E. (2d) 243.

Recommended Citation

John Houck S.Ed., LABOR LAW-CLASS ACTION BY LABOR UNION MEMBERS TO ENFORCE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT-JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS, 51 Mich. L. Rev. 604 (1953).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol51/iss4/17