Summary

Byron White Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v…

The Commission acts in a most delicate area here, because whatever it does affirmatively (whether it grants a certificate or enters a cease-and-desist order) may have important consequences upon the collective bargaining processes between the union and the employer. The policies of the Interstate Commerce Act and the labor act necessarily must be accommodated, one to the other.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v…

The collective bargaining contract between the trunkline carriers and the union contained protection of rights or so-called 'hot cargo' clauses which reserved to the union and its members 'the right to refuse to handle goods from or to any firm or truck' involved in any controversy with the union and provided that it should not be a cause for discharge if an employee of the carrier refused to handle 'unfair' goods.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v…

It is unmistakably clear from the opinion of the Commission and from the fact-findings it made or adopted, [8] that the disruption in service resulted solely from refusals to serve, which in turn arose from union pressure applied to obtain union objectives. It is equally clear that absent union pressure there would have been no refusals to serve and that in such normal circumstances the facilities and the services of the existing carriers were adequate.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature