Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Labor Law--Jurisdiction--Contractual Interpretation, Unfair Labor Practices, And Arbitration: A Proposed Resolution Of Jurisdictional Overlap, Michigan Law Review
Labor Law--Jurisdiction--Contractual Interpretation, Unfair Labor Practices, And Arbitration: A Proposed Resolution Of Jurisdictional Overlap, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
In San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, the Supreme Court held that the state and federal courts must defer to the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably an unfair labor practice as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). At the same time, section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) provides that the courts have jurisdiction in actions alleging violations of collective agreements. Two distinct factual settings have emerged in which these jurisdictional propositions are at odds.
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
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 …
Labor Law--Res Judicata--The Applicability Of Res Judicata And Collateral Estoppel To Actions Brought Under Section 8(B) (4) Of The National Labor Relations Act, Michigan Law Review
Labor Law--Res Judicata--The Applicability Of Res Judicata And Collateral Estoppel To Actions Brought Under Section 8(B) (4) Of The National Labor Relations Act, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note is concerned primarily with the possibility of granting preclusive effect to the Board's determination of the issue of union liability under the section 8(b)(4) charge. Since traditional collateral estoppel principles must be adapted somewhat when applied to the Board's procedures, the preclusive effect given to the prior determination of liability will be referred to simply as "estoppel" in order to avoid confusion with the doctrine of collateral estoppel as it was developed in the courts.