|
''NLRB v. Truck Drivers Local 449 (Buffalo Linen Supply Co.),'' 353 U.S. 87 (1957),〔This case is more commonly cited as "Buffalo Linen Supply Co." The National Labor Relations Board titles cases based on the ULP filed against the employer or the union. In this case, the ULP had been filed against the employer, Buffalo Linen Supply Co. However, complainant Truck Drivers Local 449 appealed the case to the courts. The courts refer to this case as "Buffalo Linen" in order to keep the reference to the original NLRB decision.〕 is an 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a temporary lockout by a multi-employer bargaining group threatened by a whipsaw strike was lawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), also known as the Taft-Hartley Act.〔"Multi-Employer Lockout Found Lawful Response to Whipsaw Strike," ''Columbia Law Review,'' December 1957.〕〔Atleson, ''Values and Assumptions in American Labor Law,'' 1984.〕〔Getman, Pogrebin, and Gregory, ''Labor Management Relations and the Law,'' 1999.〕〔Gorman and Finkin, ''Basic Text on Labor Law: Unionization and Collective Bargaining,'' 2004.〕〔Lambert, ''"If the Workers Took A Notion": The Right to Strike and American Political Development,'' 2005.〕 ==Background== The International Brotherhood of Teamsters had organized truck drivers working for linen supply and laundry companies in and around Buffalo, New York, in the early 1930s. In 1934, eight of the employers formed the Linen and Credit Exchange, a multi-employer association to act as a collective bargaining agent for the employers. A first contract with the Exchange was negotiated, and successor contracts also agreed to and implemented.〔 The most recent contract was due to expire on April 30, 1953, but no successor contract was negotiated. Negotiations continued slowly. Finally, the Teamsters engaged in a whipsaw strike against one of the employers, Frontier Linen Supply, on May 26, 1953. The following day, the other seven employers locked out their truck drivers. A week later, a new collective bargaining agreement was signed, the lockout ended, and the locked out workers rehired.〔 But the Teamsters filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge against the seven employers alleging that the lockout violated Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. The trial examiner, now called administrative law judge, concluded that a ULP had been committed; but, the five-member National Labor Relations Board (Board) overruled the examiner. The Board concluded the lockout was defensive, not retaliatory, and therefore lawful.〔''NLRB v. Truck Drivers Local 449,'' 353 U.S. 87, 91-92.〕 The union appealed the Board's ruling. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held (231 F.2d 110) that the strike was an economic strike, not an unfair labor practice strike, and hence not protected by the Section 8 of the NLRA. However, the appellate court concluded that a temporary lockout based on the perceived threat of a strike could be justified only if a strike would impose an unusual economic hardship on the employer. Since none of the seven employers had demonstrated such hardship, the Court of Appeals ruled that the employers had committed a ULP. The NLRB appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「NLRB v. Truck Drivers Local 449」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|