Federal labor laws generally preempt state laws that conflict with or frustrate the federal labor scheme. In Air Line Pilots Association, International v. UAL Corp., the Seventh Circuit held that federal law did not preempt an anti-takeover statute that invalidated anti-takeover provisions in a collective bargaining agreement. This Note analyzes the court\u27s holding and suggests that the court misapplied judicial precedent. Because state anti-takeover laws as applied to labor agreements conflict with and frustrate the federal labor scheme, this Note concludes that these state laws should be preempted
When an employer and a labor union negotiate over an employment contract, their agreements are usual...
In 1948, petitioner-union of the employees of the transit system in the City of Milwaukee called a s...
Plaintiffs claimed that defendant union and defendant company conspired to discriminate against Negr...
The Supreme Court has held that a ruling by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Boar...
Extensive federal labor legislation under the commerce clause has created a perplexing jurisdictiona...
In three recent cases, the United States Supreme Court has been required to determine the impact of ...
Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 776 (A. F. L.), 74 Sup. Ct. 161 (1953)
The body of statutory wording, regulations and court and administrative decisions which clusters aro...
The appellant (defendant in the case below) and certain of its members were found guilty of unfair l...
The doctrine of preemption is widely considered to be the most confusing area in labor law. In 1986,...
The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court\u27s enforcement of an order obtained by the ...
This article previews the Supreme Court case Int\u27l Longshoremen\u27s Ass\u27n v. Davis, 476 U.S. ...
This Note traces the development of federal preemption in labor law, examining Peterson as an illust...
Respondent employers refused to enter a union shop agreement with the petitioning unions, who then b...
Plaintiff was an employee of defendant corporation, and an officer of the union accredited as bargai...
When an employer and a labor union negotiate over an employment contract, their agreements are usual...
In 1948, petitioner-union of the employees of the transit system in the City of Milwaukee called a s...
Plaintiffs claimed that defendant union and defendant company conspired to discriminate against Negr...
The Supreme Court has held that a ruling by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Boar...
Extensive federal labor legislation under the commerce clause has created a perplexing jurisdictiona...
In three recent cases, the United States Supreme Court has been required to determine the impact of ...
Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 776 (A. F. L.), 74 Sup. Ct. 161 (1953)
The body of statutory wording, regulations and court and administrative decisions which clusters aro...
The appellant (defendant in the case below) and certain of its members were found guilty of unfair l...
The doctrine of preemption is widely considered to be the most confusing area in labor law. In 1986,...
The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court\u27s enforcement of an order obtained by the ...
This article previews the Supreme Court case Int\u27l Longshoremen\u27s Ass\u27n v. Davis, 476 U.S. ...
This Note traces the development of federal preemption in labor law, examining Peterson as an illust...
Respondent employers refused to enter a union shop agreement with the petitioning unions, who then b...
Plaintiff was an employee of defendant corporation, and an officer of the union accredited as bargai...
When an employer and a labor union negotiate over an employment contract, their agreements are usual...
In 1948, petitioner-union of the employees of the transit system in the City of Milwaukee called a s...
Plaintiffs claimed that defendant union and defendant company conspired to discriminate against Negr...