reversal on question of legality of contract provision involved
How later courts described this case
- reversal on question of legality of contract provision involved
- violation of §§ 8(b)(2) and 9(a)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Whittaker
dissent, substantially for the reasons stated by the Court of Appeals, 278 F. 2d 6 .
We turn then to the controversy over the “foreman clause.” As to whether the strike to obtain the “foreman clause” was permissible, the Court is equally divided. Accordingly the judgment on that phase of the controversy is affirmed.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.