< 76, No.
endobj
0000026511 00000 n
The "moving wall" represents the time period between the last issue Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives the individual the right at least to present his grievance to the employer without the intervention of the bargaining repre-sentative, provided the bargaining representative is given the opportunity to be present at the meeting.5 Section 301 of the %PDF-1.7 %���� available in JSTOR and the most recently published issue of a journal. 0000002633 00000 n 0000026695 00000 n 0000001808 00000 n 0000001749 00000 n In rare instances, a interest. publisher has elected to have a "zero" moving wall, so their current After an analysis of the doctrine of preemption, he considers five types of labor-contract suits which involve overlap between NLRB competence and court jurisdiction, and concludes that in most instances courts should be permitted to exercise their contract-enforcing function. 172 26 0000009581 00000 n -Section 301, Labor Management Relations Act preemption;-ERISA preemption; and-preemption under federal antidiscrimination statutes. 0000002138 00000 n 0000002312 00000 n The court therefore remanded the case to state court, expressing “no view on the underlying merits” of the case. trailer Although it would appear that the basic purpose of the section was to "give to employers the right to sue a union in interstate commerce, in a Federal court, for violation of contract," 3 . 0000001465 00000 n under Section 3o, Congress must have intended for the Norris-La-Guardia Act to apply to such suits. 0000001970 00000 n 0000005192 00000 n In LMRA section 301(a) suits by individual employees, the courts have primarily focused upon the presence or absence of contractual arbitration clauses in deciding whether or not to dispose of these actions on a motion for summary judgment. All Rights Reserved. Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act. 0000004559 00000 n Several labor cases recently decided by the Supreme Court have brought into issue a conflict between the NLRB's primary jurisdiction over matters subject to sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA and the doctrine that courts have jurisdiction to enforce collective agreements. provides that any federal district court may hear suits based upon the breach of a contract between an employer and a labor organization.
Some of these tests, such as that used with respect to federal antidiscrimination statutes, are quite narrow. Ninth Circuit Clarifies Parameters for Preemption Analysis Under Section 301 of LMRAby Practical Law Labor & Employment Related Content Published on 16 Aug 2016 • USA (National/Federal)In Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg'l Med. When an issue involves both an agreement’s provision and a state law, determining whether the state law is preempted requires application of a two-part test. Moving walls are generally represented in years. Second, each of these strands of federal preemption has it own test for preemption. issues are available in JSTOR shortly after publication.In order to preview this item and view access options please enable javascript.Check to see if your institution has access to this content.©2000-2020 ITHAKA.
You have javascript disabled. xref
2 . Under LMRA section 301 (“Section 301”), federal courts have jurisdiction to decide disputes that arise out of collective bargaining agreements. Finding that without Section 301 preemption, there was no basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, the court concluded that the removal of the case to federal court had been improper. 0000032198 00000 n 0000020472 00000 n
1 . 0000021190 00000 n 0000000816 00000 n 0000005567 00000 n 0000001487 00000 n 0000006929 00000 n 529-577 0000012234 00000 n 0000002485 00000 n 172 0 obj <> 0000012414 00000 n Professor Sovern discusses these cases and argues that the Court properly decided that the principle of exclusive NLRB jurisdiction should yield in suits on collective agreements, but he criticizes the Court for not having articulated a satisfactory rationale in support of this result. JSTOR®, the JSTOR logo, JPASS®, Artstor®, Reveal Digital™ and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA. Vol. 0000000016 00000 n 0000006246 00000 n SECTION 301 AND THE PRIMARY JURISDICTION OF THE NLRB Michael I. Sovern * Several labor cases recently decided by the Supreme Court have brought into issue a conflict between the NLRB's primary jurisdic-tion over matters subject to sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA and the doctrine that courts have jurisdiction to enforce collective agreements. 0000020654 00000 n 0000001333 00000 n 3 (Jan., 1963), pp. Concluding Thoughts. Several labor cases recently decided by the Supreme Court have brought into issue a conflict between the NLRB's primary jurisdiction over matters subject to sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA and the doctrine that courts have jurisdiction to enforce collective agreements.