SCOTUS DISMISSES "UNDER THE RADAR" UNION CASE: CHARLES WARE"S UPDATE

 

 

www.charlesjeromeware.com “We are here to make a difference; we fight, you win.”

The U.S. Supreme Court won’t consider a case on the validity of union-employer “neutrality agreements” after hearing oral arguments on November 13.

 

Salon had called Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall an “under-the radar case that could deal a major blow to already embattled U.S. unions.” Unions seek to entice companies to help them in the type of agreement before the court, promising labor peace or other concessions in exchange for an employer’s help. The employer may agree in exchange to remain neutral, for example, or may help the union by providing access to employee lists.

 

At issues is whether such agreements violate the Labor Management Relations Act, which bars companies from paying money or “any other thing of value” to a labor union trying to organize workers.

 

Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented from the court’s dismissal of the case as improvidently granted in an opinion on Tuesday joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

 

Breyer’s dissent acknowledges that the case could be moot, either because the agreement at issue expired before a federal appeals court issues a decision, or because the employee who challenged the agreement lacked standing. He said the Supreme Court should have asked for additional briefing on a third question: whether the federal law authorizes a private right of action.

 

If the case was found to be moot, the court would likely vacate the decision finding a labor violation by the Atlanta based 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, “thereby removing its precedential effect and leaving the merits question open to be resolved in a later case,” Breyer said.