Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

University of Michigan Law School

Michigan Law Review

1969

Picketing

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Labor Law--Until Congress Acts, Secondary Picketing By Unions Subject To The Railway Labor Act Is Protected Against State Proscription--Brotherhood Of Railroad Trainmen V. Jacksonville Terminal Company, Michigan Law Review Dec 1969

Labor Law--Until Congress Acts, Secondary Picketing By Unions Subject To The Railway Labor Act Is Protected Against State Proscription--Brotherhood Of Railroad Trainmen V. Jacksonville Terminal Company, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In a major labor dispute between the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and the Florida East Coast Railway Company (FEC), the parties, having exhausted all the procedures of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) for resolving a major dispute, resorted to self-help remedies. FEC unilaterally changed its operating employees' rates of pay, rules, and working conditions; and the union, in turn, called a strike and picketed peacefully at locations where FEC operated, including the premises of the Jacksonville Terminal Company, which served a number of other railroads. The avowed objective of the union's picketing was to cause the other carriers using the …


Labor Relations--Consumer Picketing Under Section 8(B) (4) (Ii) (B) Of The National Labor Relations Act--Honolulu Typographical Union, No. 37, I.T.U., A.F.L.-C.I.O. V. Nlrb, Michigan Law Review Apr 1969

Labor Relations--Consumer Picketing Under Section 8(B) (4) (Ii) (B) Of The National Labor Relations Act--Honolulu Typographical Union, No. 37, I.T.U., A.F.L.-C.I.O. V. Nlrb, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The principal case is concerned generally with the problem of secondary activity by unions, and specifically with the application of a judicially created exception to the general prohibition against such activity. As originally written, section 8(b)(4) was intended to protect neutral employers from becoming involved in disputes between other employers and unions by prohibiting certain union activities. Among the practices forbidden was the traditional secondary boycott which arises when a union in a dispute with a primary employer brings pressure to bear on other employers (secondary employers), through their employees, to cease doing business with the primary. However, the statute …