LEWIS ET AL.
v.
BENEDICT COAL CORP.; UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA ET AL. V. BENEDICT COAL CORP.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court granted two petitions for certiorari in cases involving whether the United Mine Workers of America violated a 1950 collective bargaining agreement by engaging in work stoppages, given that the agreement expressly rescinded prior "no strike" clauses and required disputes to be settled exclusively through grievance machinery procedures.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
. “1. Where (1) the settlement of disputes section of collective bargaining agreements - antedating 1950 provided that Mine Workers shall not engage in a work stoppage pending settlement of disputes under grievance machinery procedures and such agreements contained other ‘no strike’ clauses, and (2) under the Labor Man-agément Relations Act, 1947,4a 'the right to strike became-a bargainable subject, and (3) in 1950 UMW and coal operators signatories to. the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1950, deleted such clauses therefrom .and expressly covenanted that the ‘no strike’ clauses in prior agreements were rescinded and made null and void, and (4) signatories to such 1950 Agreément covenanted that stoppages, as well as disputes, shall be settled exclusively under grievance machinery procedures set forth in such contract, is a stoppage of work pending settlement of a dispute cognizable under the grievance machinery procedures proscribed thereby and a violation of the 1950 Agreement so as to subject UMW and District. 28 to damage actions under the Act’s Section 301?”
Val J. Mitch, Harold H. Bacon, E. H. Rayson, Charles E. McNabb and R. R. Kramer for petitioners in No. 562.
Welly K. Hopkins, Harrison Combs, Willard P. Owens and M. E. Boiarsky for petitioners in No. 563. Fred B. Greear for respondent.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.
Reported below: 259 E. 2d 346.
4a
The Labor Management Relations Act,. 1947, is herein called the “Act.”