Felix Frankfurter

Name: Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. Richman Brothers — Opinion of the Court
Author: Felix Frankfurter

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v…

Summary

“Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. Richman Brothers — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Felix Frankfurter. It explores elements such as injunction, jurisdiction and Board.

Quotes from Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v… (Felix Frankfurter)

Felix Frankfurter, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v…

“ Justice DOUGLAS in his dissenting opinion, such a literal interpretation seriously frustrates a comprehensive regulatory scheme established by Congress for the resolution of the kind of labor dispute involved here. The Board, although clearly having exclusive jurisdiction of the subject matter, cannot adjudicate the dispute as long as the employer does not file an unfair labor practice charge; and the employer has no incentive to do so as long as the state court injunction is outstanding. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v…

“ The employer, who might have brought a charge of an unfair labor practice before the Board, has chosen to ignore his remedy under the Taft-Hartley Act. The temporary injunction which has been issued is not, under Ohio law, appealable, [3] and the appellate procedures which will be available if a permanent injunction is issued are necessarily time-consuming. Thus, so the argument runs, unless the federal court can intervene, delay will not only undercut the legislative scheme, but opportunity for effective union activity may be diminished if not lost. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v…

“ It is urged that an employer may deliberately prevent Board action by going into a state court. For one thing, it has not yet been determined that, if an employer resorts to a state court in relation to conduct that is obviously taken over by the Taft-Hartley Act and outside the bounds of state relief, it may not under appropriate circumstances give ground for a finding of an unfair labor practice. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v…

“ In the face of this carefully considered enactment, we cannot accept the argument of petitioner and the Board, as amicus curiae, that § 2283 does not apply whenever the moving party in the District Court alleges that the state court is 'wholly without jurisdiction over the subject matter, having invaded a field pre-empted by Congress.' No such exception had been established by judicial decision under former § 265. [2] In any event, Congress has left no justification for its recognition now. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v…

“ However, injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order may be obtained by the Board from the appropriate District Court, pending final adjudication by the Board, 'upon issuance of a complaint' by the Board or when there is 'reasonable cause to believe' in the truth of a charge that a party 'has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (A) , (B) , or (C) of section 8 (b) .' Congress explicitly gave such jurisdiction to the district courts only on behalf of the Board on a petition by it or 'the officer or regional attorney to whom the matter may be referred'. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v…

“ This is not a statute conveying a broad general policy for appropriate ad hoc application. Legislative policy is here expressed in a clear-cut prohibition qualified only by specifically defined exceptions. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v…

“ To hold that the Taft-Hartley Act also authorizes a private litigant to secure interim relief would be to ignore the closely circumscribed jurisdiction given to the District Court and to generalize where Congress has chosen to specify. To find exclusive authority for relief vested in the Board and not in private parties accords with other aspects of the Act. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v…

“ Respondent, an Ohio corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of men's clothing in interstate commerce, filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio, alleging that the union's conduct constituted a common-law conspiracy as well as a statutory and common-law restraint of trade. ”

Felix Frankfurter

Summary

Quotes from Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v… (Felix Frankfurter)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature