Summary

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Local 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union v…

Since there had been no approach to Launder's employees, the court held that the request to Launder management was permissible activity under federal law, but ruled that this conduct violated the common law of Ohio, which, the court said, prohibits 'making direct appeals to a struck employer's customers or suppliers to stop doing business with the struck employer * * *.' The respondent was accordingly awarded almost $9,000 as compensatory damages for this violation of Ohio law.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Local 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union v…

With respect to the remaining components of the money judgment recovered by the respondent, the central question to be decided is whether a court, state or federal, is free to apply state law in awarding damages resulting from a union's peaceful strike conduct vis-a -vis a secondary employer, or is confined in the field of damage actions brought for union secondary activities to the specifically limited provisions of § 303 of the federal Act.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature