LOCAL 24, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, ET AL.
v.
OLIVER ET AL.
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.
Local 24, International Brotherhood of Teamsters challenged an Ohio court's injunction that prevented unions and trucking companies from enforcing certain provisions of their labor agreement requiring that hired or leased equipment be operated only by the carriers' own employees. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that Ohio's antitrust law could not be applied to prevent the parties from carrying out their agreement on matters that federal labor law directs them to bargain over, as the disputed provisions were intimately connected to wages and working conditions.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to use the record in No. 49, October Term, 1958, is granted. The petition for certiorari is also granted. After our remand to the Court of Appeals of the State of Ohio, Ninth Judicial District, for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court, 358 U. S. 283, the Court of Appeals set aside its previous order “as it concerns and applies to Revel Oliver, appellee, as a lessor-driver” but continued the order in full force and effect “as it concerns and applies to Revel Oliver, appellee, as a lessor-owner and employer of drivers of his equipment.” We read the judgment of the Court of Appeals as enjoining petitioners and respondents A. C. E. Transportation Co. and Interstate Truck Service, Inc., from enforcing against respondent Oliver those parts of Article 32 which provide that hired or leased equipment, if not owner-driven, shall be operated only by employees of the certificated or permitted carriers and require those carriers to use their own available equipment before hiring any extra equipment. Art. XXXII, §§ 4 and 5, 358 U. S., at 298-299. While we do not think the issue was tendered to us when the case was last here, we are of opinion that these provisions are at least as intimately bound up with the subject of wages as the minimum rental provisions we passed on then. Accordingly, as in the previous case, we hold that Ohio’s antitrust law here may not “be applied to prevent the contracting parties from carrying out their agreement upon a subject matter as to which federal law directs them to bargain.” 358 U. S., at 295.
The judgment accordingly is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Whittaker dissents.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Fed'n of Musicians of the United States & Canada v. Carroll, 391 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1968)…eaders, see Hunt v. Crumboch, 325 U. S. 821, to impose the minimum employment quotas complained of, United States v. American Federation of Musicians, supra, to require the orchestra leaders to use the Form B contract, see Teamsters Union v. Oliver, 362 U. S. 605 (Oliver II), and to favor local musicians by requiring that higher wages be paid to musicians from outside a local’s jurisdiction, Rambusch Decorating Co. v. Brotherhood of Painters, 105 F. 2d 134. The District Court also sustained the legality of…
-
Sperry Sys. Mgmt. Div. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 492 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1974)…quires that certain work be done by workers in the unit even though workers outside the unit may be affected. See National Woodwork Manufacturers Association v. NLRB, 386 U.S. 612, 87 S.Ct. 1250, 18 L.Ed.2d 357 (1967); Local 24, Teamsters v. Oliver, 362 U.S. 605, 80 S.Ct. 923, 4 L.Ed.2d 987 (1960) (Oliver II). Cf. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 85 S.Ct. 398, 13 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964). Here the Union is attempting to set the minimum terms of employment for workers outside the unit. . It…
-
Pyle v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 383 F.2d 772 (3d Cir. 1967)…rity of bargaining unit members was recognized by the Supreme Court in the Oliver cases, Local 24, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Oliver, 358 U.S. 283, 79 S.Ct. 297, 3 L.Ed.2d 312 (1959), and 362 U.S. 605, 80 S.Ct. 923, 4 L.Ed.2d 987 (1960). The Court there dealt with provisions which were virtually identical to those involved here and held that they were immune from attack under state antitrust law because of the exclusive federal jurisdiction over…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Local 24 v. Oliver, 358 U.S. 283 (U.S. 1959)