Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

UNITE HERE LOCAL 355 v. MULHALL

Docket No.: 12-99
Certiorari Granted: Jun 24 2013
Argued: November 13, 2013
Decided: December 10, 2013

Topics:

Article I, First Amendment, Labor Management Relations Act, NLRA, National Labor Relations Act, antitrust

PartyNames: Unite Here Local 355 v. Martin Mulhall, et al.
Petitioner: Unite Here Local 355
Respondent: Martin Mulhall, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Citation: 667 F.3d 1211
Supreme Court Docket

Unite Here Local 355
v.
Martin Mulhall, et al.
Background:

Section 302 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186 -the federal labor anti-bribery statute -makes it criminal for an employer "to pay, lend, or deliver ... any money or other thing of value" to a labor union that seeks to represent its employees, and prohibits the labor union from receiving the same. The Third and Fourth Circuits have held that agreements between employers and unions that set ground rules for union organizing campaigns -including employer promises to remain neutral and recognize the union upon a showing of majority support, and union promises to forego the rights to picket, boycott, or otherwise put pressure on the employer's business -are not "payment" of "things of value" proscribed by § 302. The Third Circuit found that a contrary holding would "wreak havoc on the carefully balanced structure of the laws governing recognition of and bargaining with unions." Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees, Local 57 v. Sage Hospitality Resources, LLC, 390 F.3d 206, 219 (3d Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 1944 (2005). In this case, however, the Eleventh Circuit came to the opposite conclusion.

Question Presented:

Whether an employer and union may violate § 302 by entering into an agreement under which the employer exercises its freedom of speech by promising to remain neutral to union organizing, its property rights by granting union representatives limited access to the employer's property and employees, and its freedom of contract by obtaining the union's promise to forego its rights to picket, boycott, or otherwise put pressure on the employer's business?

UNITE HERE LOCAL 355 v. MULHALL
ORAL ARGUMENT

November 13, 2013

Listen to Oral Argument in UNITE HERE LOCAL 355 v. MULHALL
Holding: DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED
Vote: 9-0
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)