LABOR LAW-LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT-ANTI-FEATHERBEDDING PROVISION

Authors

Walter H. Weiner S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

The typographers union insisted that newspaper publishers, upon using advertising mats as molds for metal castings from which to print advertisements, pay typesetters, at regular rates, for setting up duplicate forms for such advertisements in the same manner as though mats were not used, which duplicate forms are ordinarily melted down without having been used. The musicians union insisted that a theater employ a local orchestra, as a condition of the union's consent to the local appearance of traveling bands, to play overtures, intermissions and chasers. The publishers association and the theater challenged these demands as attempts to exact payments for services not performed or not to be performed within the anti-featherbedding provision of Title I of the Labor-Management Relations Act [section 8(b)(6)]. The National Labor Relations Board dismissed both complaints, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Board's decision in the Newspaper case, but the Sixth Circuit reversed the Board in the Theater case. On certiorari, the Supreme Court affirmed the Seventh Circuit in American Newspaper Publishers Association v. NLRB, 345 U.S. 100, 73 S.Ct. 552 (1953), and reversed the Sixth Circuit and upheld the Board's dismissal in NLRB v. Gamble Enterprises, Inc., 345 U.S. 117, 73 S.Ct. 560 (1953).

Recommended Citation

Walter H. Weiner S.Ed., LABOR LAW-LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT-ANTI-FEATHERBEDDING PROVISION, 51 Mich. L. Rev. 1243 (1953).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol51/iss8/13