upholding union rule, enforceable by fines and expulsion, imposing limitation on immediate pay that members could receive for piecework because Court found no "impairment of statutory labor policy"
How later courts described this case
- upholding union rule, enforceable by fines and expulsion, imposing limitation on immediate pay that members could receive for piecework because Court found no "impairment of statutory labor policy"
- distinguishing internal ünion rules from rules whose enforcement would have an external effect, such as interfering with the employee’s relationship with his employer
- distinguishing internal union rules from rules whose enforcement would have an external effect, such as interfering with the employee's relationship with his employer
- "[Section] 8(b)(1) leaves a union free to enforce a properly adopted rule which reflects a legitimate union interest, impairs no policy Congress has imbedded in the labor laws, and is reasonably enforced against union members who are free to leave the union and escape the rule."
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Limited by National Labor Relations Board v. Boeing Co., 412 U.S. 67 (1973)
This interpretation, however, permissible as it may be, is only dicta, since in both Allis-Chalmers and in Scofield the reasonableness of the fines was assumed. 388 U. S., at 192-193, n. 30; 394 U. S., at 430.7 Being squarely presented with the issue in this case, we recede from the implications of the dicta in these earlier cases.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Black,
dissenting.
Because the union members collected from their employer extra pay for piecework production in excess of that agreed upon by the union and the company, the union has tried the members, fined them, and suspended them from the union for one year. Section 8(b)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act makes it an unfair labor practice for a union to “restrain or coerce” employees in the exercise of their right under § 7 to refrain from any or all concerted activities. In this case the National Labor Relations Board held that the union did not commit' an unfair labor practice in coercing employees through fines and suspensions into refusing to engage in this concerted activity. I dissent from affirming this order of the Board for the reasons set out at length in my dissenting opinion in NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 175, 199 (1967).