Summary

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Sinclair Refining Company v. Atkinson…

It is doubtless true, as argued, that the right to sue which § 301 gives employers would be worth more to them if they could also get a federal court injunction to bar a breach of their collective bargaining agreements. Strong arguments are made to us that it is highly desirable that the Norris-LaGuardia Act be changed in the public interest. If that is so, Congress itself might see fit to change that law and repeal the anti-injunction provisions of the Act insofar as suits for violation of collective agreements are concerned, as the House bill under consideration originally provided.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Sinclair Refining Company v. Atkinson…

The argument to the contrary seems to rest upon the notion that injunctions against peaceful strikes are necessary to make the arbitration process effective. But whatever might be said about the merits of this argument, Congress has itself rejected it. In doing so, it set the limit to which it was willing to go in permitting courts to effectuate the congressional policy favoring arbitration and it is not this Court's business to review the wisdom of that decision.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Sinclair Refining Company v. Atkinson…

Section 13 of that Act expressly defines a labor dispute as including 'any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.' [9] Sinclair's own complaint shows quite plainly that each of the alleged nine work stoppages and strikes arose out of a controversy which was unquestionably well within this definition.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature