About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

10 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 137 (1948-1949)
The Primary Strike for Recognition

handle is hein.journals/upitt10 and id is 139 raw text is: THE PRIMARY STRIKE FOR RECOGNITION Charles C. Arensberg* INTRODUCTION The primary strike for recognition or unionization, sometimes called the organizational strike, has been a weapon used with varying results by labor for the last forty years or more. Its most conspicuous recent success was in the automobile industry,. when the U. A. W. was formed. Its failures fill the law books with their bitter struggles. In the last decade, however, with th6 tremendous increase in numbers that the unions have achieved, as well as the universal acceptance by industry of collective bargaining, there has grown up an orderly procedure for unionization, the election. Despite the NLRA with its elections, and the eight states with their acts patterned generally after the NLRA,' the organizational strike with its pic- keting continues. There is great confusion among the states as to what ex- tent and under what circumstances such a strike will be enjoined or regulated by the courts. Even within the boundaries of the states, the lower courts will not always follow the appellate courts. In trying to find out the law, that is, to prophesy in a given instance what the court will do under certain circum- stances, taking note of the forum is most important. Is the precedent to be found in the federal district or appellate courts, or in the state lower or appel- late courts? This necessity to observe the forum is probably greater in labor law because of the fluidity of the situation usually prevailing between manage- ment and labor, which gives rise to court action and the fact that, because of this. fluidity and the frequent early settlement of the difference, appeals to the courts of last resort are the exception rather than the rule. Even if the Taft-Hartley Act2 is drastically amended or repealed by the new Congress, the picture will be changed only in the federal courts. The state courts have dealt with strikes for organizational purposes under state laws where they exist, and under state principles of equity where the specific matter is not covered by statute. Rarely is the Taft-Hartley Act a decisive factor in the case in a state court, even where interstate commerce is involved. The states look to their own laws and cite the Taft-Hartley Act only by way of comparison. Labor's victory then over the Taft-Hartley Act will be com- plete' only if it achieves the repeal or amendment of the various state acts pat- terned after it. * A.B., LL.B., Harvard University; member of the Allegheny County Bar. Author: Seals and the Uniform Written. Obligation Act, 21 TEMPLE L. Q. 122 (1947) ; Linita- tion by Bailees and by Landlords of Liability for Negligent Acts, 51 DIcK. L. Rzv. 36 (1946). 1 See Note, 61 HA.v. L. REV. 840 (1948). See also 65 MONTHLY LABOR Rxv. 277 (1947) for summary of 1947 state labor legislation affecting strikes, picketing, boycotts, labor relations, etc. 2 61 STAT. 120 (1947), 29 U. S. C. A. 141 et seq. (1947).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most