FOREWORD State Labor Injunctions and Federal Law was prepared by Merton C. Bernstein, former counsel, and Thomas Hughes, former staff member, of the Subcommittee on Labor and Labor-Management Relations of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. The subject of this study is the extent to which State injunctions I have invaded the field of labor-management relations occupied by Federal law. It is a matter which has been the subject of continuing interest and investigation by the Subcommittee on Labor and LaborManagement Relations in both the 81st and 82d Congresses. The groundwork for this study was first laid in the investigations conducted by five university groups on request of the subcommittee, now available in Senate Document 7, 81st Congress, 2d session. Two large implications emerge from the present study. First is a constitutional question: the erosion by State courts of federally protected rights. Second is a question of the sound public regulation of abor-management relations. The Congress has established a wholesale scheme of statutory regulation of labor-management relations. It has prescribed many standards, rejected others. Are we now conronted with a situation in which the legislative design is being negated by piecemeal State court decisions? There is another question raised by these inquiries. What is the roper role of the State government in labor relations? It certainly s not to provide either labor or management with the chance for opportunistic choices based upon which forum provides a more expelient determination. I hope that this study will help sharpen the issues which the Congress nust face in its consideration of labor-management problems. As vith all staff reports of the subcommittee, no member is responsible or the views or conclusions expressed therein. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Chairman. CONTENTS Pago III. The scope of Federal regulation of labor-management relations A. Summary of Wagner Act provisions.- B. Summary of Taft-Hartley Act------ IV. Federal and State jurisdiction over labor-management relations....- B. Exclusive Federal jurisdiction-The Supreme Court speaks V. Supreme Court cases on Federal preemption in the labor-manage- B. Under the Taft-Hartley Act... C. Other Supreme Court cases on picketing.. STATE LABOR INJUNCTIONS AND FEDERAL LAW I. INTRODUCTION Twenty years ago the Congress enacted the Norris-LaGuardia Act which severely restricted the issuance by Federal courts of injunctions in labor disputes at the instance of private parties. That statute has been effective and scrupulously administered by the Federal judiciary. The labor injunction has not thereby become a subject for academic study only. It remains one of the most controversial factors in labor relations today. This remains so because of the widespread use of the injunction by State courts in private labor-management controversies. In 1951 the Subcommittee on Labor and Labor-Management Relations of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee issued a report on State Court Injunctions which surveyed the use of labor njunctions by State courts in four selected areas: (1) eight Midwestern States; (2) Los Angeles County; (3) the most populous counties of New York State; and (4) the Southeastern States. That report consisted of surveys by knowledgable students of the ubject in outstanding universities of the areas studied. For the most art, the surveys were quantitative analyses of State court injuncions with a description of the procedures prevalent in each area.2 Dr. Edwin Witte, chairman of the department of economics f the University of Wisconsin, summarized the study, in part, s follows: 1. There has occurred a far lesser decrease in the number of injunctions issued the State courts against unions on the suit of employers than in the Federal burts. There is some doubt even whether there has been any decrease, but is my belief that the number of injunctions issued in recent years by State urts on the complaint of employers is appreciably less than in the 1920's. ertain it is that the number of injunctions applied for, but denied, has very eatly increased. 2. There are wide differences between regions and States in the number of junctions issued in labor cases. There are considerable differences also between fferent years in the same State. stern States areas. * 3. Ex parte restraining orders are now far less common than earlier in most ate courts but still represent the usual procedure in the Los Angeles and SouthSome ex parte temporary restraining orders are reported Eastern States areas. Some ex parte temporary restraining orders are rerted in all of the studies. They have become very uncommon (in the areas which there are regional reports) except in Los Angeles and in the Southstern States. In New York City, in which Brissenden (op. cit.) found that parte restraining orders were issued in 303 out of 441 applications for labor junctions prior to 1930, Seidenberg reported only 15 stay orders prior to hearin a total of 389 labor injunction cases in the years 1935 to 1950. In const, in Los Angeles and in the Southeastern States the issuance of restraining 8. Doc. No. 7, 81st Cong., 2d sess. The results are not complete because of the fact that most injunction cases are unreported, thereby makdiscovery of them time consuming and complicated. To that extent the earlier report is an understate it of actual conditions. |