A Blow to Unions

In 1932, the Norris-La Guardia Act stopped federal judges from issuing anti-strike injunctions against the struggling unions of the time. In 1962, the Supreme Court held that the statute even protected walkouts barred by no-strike agreements in union contracts. But last week, in a rare move, the court reversed itself. Result: federal judges may now enjoin strikes that violate no-strike provisions if a union contract also provides for binding arbitration of disputes. At issue was a strike by the Retail Clerks union against a California supermarket, called after the store had allowed nonunion workers to arrange its shelves. A federal district judge, noting that the union contract called for binding arbitration, issued an order barring the strike. He was reversed by a federal appeals court, which relied on the 1962 decision. But the Supreme Court agreed with the district judge.

Upholding Arbitration. The new decision deals a blow to those segments of organized labor that prefer to rely on muscle rather than arbitration. But it will present few problems for those who respect their contracts.

Speaking for the court, Justice William Brennan held that the 1962 decision was in error and "subsequent events have undermined its continuing validity." Moreover, Congress's enactment of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act put a new burden on the courts to cool labor disputes by upholding arbitration and similar techniques.

In sharp dissent, Justice Hugo Black defended the 1962 decision and deflated Brennan's explanation of the court's reversal. "Nothing at all has changed," said Black, "except the membership of the court and the personal views of one Justice." Indeed, Chief Justice Earl Warren, who had sided with Black, has been replaced by Warren Burger, who voted with the majority. Justice Potter Stewart, who upheld the anti-injunction law in 1962, voted against it last week.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.