Amalgamated Ass of Street, Electric Railway Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 998 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board United Gas, Coke Chemical Workers of America, Cio v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board

Decision Date26 February 1951
Docket Number438,Nos. 329,s. 329
Citation71 S.Ct. 359,95 L.Ed. 364,22 A.L.R.2d 874,340 U.S. 383
PartiesAMALGAMATED ASS'N OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY & MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, DIVISION 998, et al. v. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD. UNITED GAS, COKE & CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, et al. v. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Syllabus from pages 383-384 intentionally omitted] Mr. David Previant, Milwaukee, Wis., for Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Ry. and Motor Coach Employees of America, Div. 998.

Mr. Arthur J. Goldberg, Washington, D.C., for United Gas, Coke & Chemical Workers of America, CIO.

Mr. J. Gilbert, Hardgrove, Milwaukee, Wis., for appellee Milwaukee Gas Light Co.

Mr. Martin R. Paulsen, Wilwaukee, Wis., for respondent Milwaukee Elec. Ry. Transport Co.

Mr. Malcolm Riley, Eau Claire, Wis., and Beatrice Lampert, Madison, Wis., for Wisconsin Employment Relations Board.

Mr. Chief Justice VINSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

In these cases, the constitutionality of labor legislation of the State of Wisconsin known as the Public Utility Anti-Strike Law,1 has been drawn in question.

Petitioners in No. 329 are the union and its officers who represent the employees of the Milwaukee Electric Railway and Transport Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for collective-bargaining purposes.2 For many years, the transit workers entered into collective-bargaining agreements with the transit company without resorting to strike. In 1948, however, the collective agreement was terminated when the parties were unable to agree on wages, hours and working conditions and the transit workers' union called a strike to enforce union demands. The respondent Wisconsin Employment Relations Board secured immediately an ex parte order from a State Circuit Court restraining the strike and, in compliance with that order, the union postponed its strike. Thereafter, the same Circuit Court entered a judgment under which petitioners are 'perpetually restrained and enjoined from calling a strike * * * which would cause an interruption of the passenger service of the (transit company).' The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, 1950, 257 Wis. 43, 42 N.W.2d 471, and we granted certiorari, 1950, 340 U.S. 874, 71 S.Ct. 124, to review the important questions decided below.

Petitioners in No. 438 are the union and its officers who represent employees of the Milwaukee Gas Light Company and its subsidiary, the Milwaukee Solvay Coke Company, both of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, pursuant to a certification of the National Labor Relations Board.3 In 1949, the collective agreement between petitioners and the gas company was terminated and, upon failure of further bargaining and conciliation to resolve the dispute, a strike was called and the gas workers left their jobs. Respondent Wisconsin Employment Relations Board obtained forthwith an ex parte restraining order from a State Circuit Court requiring that petitioners 'absolutely desist and refrain from calling strike (or) going out on strike * * * which would cause an interruption of the service of the (gas company)' and ordering petitioners to 'take immediate steps to notify all employes called out on strike to resume service forthwith.' Although the strike was settled soon thereafter, the Circuit Court found that petitioners had not obeyed the restraining order and entered a judgment of contempt, imposing fines of $250 upon each petitioner. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed that judgment, 1950, Wisconsin Employment Relations Board v. Milwaukee Gas Light Co., 258 Wis. 1, 44 N.W.2d 547, and we granted certiorari, 1950, 340 U.S. 903, 71 S.Ct. 283, since this case raises the same substantial questions as those before the Court in No. 329.

The injunctions were issued in each case upon the complaint of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, charged by statute with the enforcement of the Public Utility Anti-Strike Law. That act vests in the state circuit courts jurisdiction to enjoin violations of the Act, Wis.Stat.1949, § 111.63, the substantive provision involved in these cases providing as follows: 'It shall be unlawful for any group of employes of a public utility employer acting in concert to call a strike or to go out on strike, or to cause any work stoppage or slowdown which would cause an interruption of an essential service; it also shall be unlawful for any public utility employer to lock out his employes when such action would cause an interruption of essential service; and it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to instigate, to induce, to conspire with, or to encourage any other person or persons to engage in any strike or lockout or slowdown or work stoppage which would cause an interruption of an essential service. Any violation of this section by any member of a group of employes acting in concert or by any employer or by any officer of an employer acting for such employer, or by any other individual, shall constitute a misdemeanor.' Wis.Stat.1949, § 111.62.4 This provision is part of a statutory pattern designed to become effective whenever collective bargaining results in an 'impasse and stalemate' likely to cause interruption of the supply of an 'essential public utility service,' Wis.Stat.1949, § 111.50, that service including water, heat, gas, electric power, public passenger transportation and communications. Id., § 111.51. Whenever such an 'impasse' occurs, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board is empowered to appoint a conciliator to meet with the parties in an effort to settled the dispute. Id., § 111.54. In the event of a failure of conciliation, the Board is directed to select arbitrators who shall 'hear and determine' the dispute. Id., § 111.55. The act establishes standards to govern the decision of the arbitrators, id., §§ 111.57—111.58, and provides that the order of the arbitrators shall be final and binding upon the parties, id., § 111.59, subject to judicial review, id., § 111.60. In summary, the act substitutes arbitration upon order of the Board for collective bargaining whenever an impasse is reached in the bargaining process. And, to insure conformity with the statutory scheme, Wisconsin denies to utility employees the right to strike.

In upholding the constitutionality of the Public Utility Anti-Strike Act, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stressed the importance of utility service to the public welfare and the plenary power which a state is accustomed to exercise over such enterprises. Petitioners' claim that the Wisconsin law conflicts with federal legislation enacted under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (Art. I, § 8) was overruled, as were petitioners' contentions that the Wisconsin Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Thirteenth Amendment. Respondents controvert each of these contentions and, apart from the questions of res judicata discussed in 340 U.S. 411, 71 S.Ct. 375, raise no other grounds in support of the judgments below. We deal only with the question of conflicting federal legislation as we have found that issue dispositive of both cases.

First. We have recently examined the extent to which Congress has regulated peaceful strikes for higher wages in industries affecting commerce. International Union of United Auto Workers v. O'Brien, 1950, 339 U.S. 454, 70 S.Ct. 781, 94 L.Ed. 978. We noted that Congress, in § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935,5 as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947,6 expressly safeguarded for employees in such industries the 'right * * * to engage in * * * concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,'7 'e.g., to strike.'8 We also listed the qualifications and regulations which Congress itself has imposed upon its guarantee of the right to strike including requirements that notice be given prior to any strike upon termination of a contract,9 prohibitions on strikes for certain objectives declared unlawful by Congress, 10 and special procedures for certain strikes which might create national emergencies.11 Upon review of these federal legislative provisions, we held, 339 U.S. at page 457, 70 S.Ct. at page 783:

'None of these sections can be read as permitting concurrent state regulation of peaceful strikes for higher wages. Congress occupied this field and closed it to state regulation. Plankinton Packing Co. v. Wisconsin Board, 1950, 338 U.S. 953, 70 S.Ct. 491; LaCrosse Telephone Corp. v. Wisconsin Board, 1949, 336 U.S. 18, 69 S.Ct. 379 (93 L.Ed. 463); Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New York Labor Board, 1947, 330 U.S. 767, 67 S.Ct. 1026, 91 L.Ed. 1234; Hill v. State of Florida ex rel. Watson, 1945, 325 U.S. 538, 65 S.Ct. 1373, 89 L.Ed. 1782.' 12

Second. The Wisconsin court sought to distinguish International Union of United Auto Workers v. O'Brien, supra, on the ground that the industry to which Michigan applied its notice and strike-vote provisions was a national manufacturing organization rather than a local public utility. Congress drew no such distinction but, instead, saw fit to regulate labor relations to the full extent of its constitutional power under the Commerce Clause, National Labor Board v. Fainblatt, 1939, 306 U.S. 601, 607, 307 U.S. 609, 59 S.Ct. 668, 672, 83 L.Ed. 1014. Ever since the question was fully argued and decided in Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Board, 1938, 305 U.S. 197, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126, it has been clear that federal labor legislation, encompassing as it does all industries 'affecting commerce,' applies to a privately owned public utility whose business and activites are carried on wholly within a single state. The courts of appeal have uniformly held enterprises similar to and no more important to interstate commerce than the Milwaukee gas and transit companies before us in these cases subject to the provisions of the federal labor law.13 No distinction between public utilities and national manufacturing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
133 cases
  • International Union, United Auto., Aircraft and Agr. Implement Workers of America, C.I.O. v. Russell, 8 Div. 751
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 22 Marzo 1956
    ... ... Copper Company (Wolverine Tube Division) engaged in his said employment at the plant of ... of his employment on and over a public street in Decatur, Morgan County, Alabama, known as ... the bargaining agent for certain of the employees of plaintiff's said employer, and called a strike ... by the passage of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et ... 781, 783, 94 L.Ed. 978; Amalgamated Ass'n, etc. v. Wisconsin Employment Rel. Bd., 340 ... , has given the National Labor Relations Board such exclusive jurisdiction[264 Ala. 466] over ... 376, 136 So. 789; Carter v. Knapp Motor Co., 243 Ala. 600, 11 So.2d 383, 144 A.L.R. 1177; ... United Railways & Electric Co. of Baltimore, 162 Md. 404, 159 A. 916, 83 ... Birmingham Railway Light & Power Co. v. Gonzales, 183 Ala. 273, 61 ... considered by this court in Tutwiler Coal, Coke & Iron Co. v. Nail, 141 Ala. 374, 37 So. 634, and ... ...
  • State v. Local 1115 Joint Bd., Nursing Home and Hospital Emp. Division
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 14 Marzo 1977
    ... ... LOCAL 1115 JOINT BOARD, NURSING HOME AND HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ... into a labor agreement governing employment conditions for the employees of the members of ... any jurisdiction in the field of labor relations within health care facilities and (2) that, in ... v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 336 U.S. 245, 254, 69 S.Ct. 516, 93 L.Ed. 651; United Constr. Workers v. Laburnum Constr. Corp., 347 ... by our courts (see, e.g., Anchor Motor Freight v. Local Union No. 445, 5 A.D.2d 869, 171 ... 380, 385, 79 L.Ed. 841; Central Kentucky Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission, 290 U.S. 264, ... has an extended quote from Virginian Railway. I suggest the quoted matter--apart from its ... Press, 1940.) See, also, Labor in America, by Professor Foster Rhea Dulles (Crowelll Co., ... 781, 94 L.Ed. 978) (1950) ... 20 Street ... Ed.2d 763) (1963); Street Employees Division 998 ... ...
  • Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union Local 54 Danziger v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union Local 54
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 2 Julio 1984
    ... ... United States ... Argued March 26, 1984 ... were pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The state administrative proceedings ... The Division of Gaming Enforcement (Division), a part of the ... personnel, kitchen staff, but whose employment duties do not require or authorize access to the ... v. Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Board, 467 U.S. 461, 469, 104 S.Ct. 2518, 2523, 81 ... Wisconsin Board, 340 U.S. 383, 394, 71 S.Ct. 359, 365, 95 .Ed. 364 (1951) (same); Automobile Workers v. O'Brien, 339 U.S. 454, 458-459, 70 S.Ct. 781, ... See Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, ... in property taxes, rentals, telephone, gas, electric, and municipal utilities charges of, ... 12. H.R.Rep. No. 998, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1953). 13. Ibid. See ... ...
  • Golden State Transit Corp v. City of Los Angeles
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 5 Diciembre 1989
    ... ... was pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) under Golden State I, there had been ... Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm'n, 427 U.S. 132, 150, ... Page 106 ... cf. United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 801, 86 S.Ct ... Although the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) has exclusive jurisdiction to ... confers certain rights "generally on employees and not merely as against the employer." Hill ... in part and dissenting in part); see also Motor Coach Employees v. Missouri, 374 U.S. 74, 83 ... 359, 95 L.Ed. 364 (1951); Automobile Workers v. O'Brien, 339 U.S. 454, 458, 70 S.Ct. 781, ... of the federal structure and from the division of power in the constitutional system. Federal ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Historical Explanation of the Nebraska Public School District Bargaining Impasse Resolution Mechanism
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 79, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...c. 178, § 10, 585, 590 (LB 537). 66. Amalgamated Ass'n of St., Elec. Ry. and Motor Coach Employees v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 383 (1951). 67. 29 U.S.C. §152 (2) (1994). 68. 1947 Fla. Laws, ch. 23911, § 8, repealed by 1983 Fla. Laws, ch. 83-214, § 7. 69. 1947 Ind. Acts, ......
  • § 2.3.4 INTRODUCTION TO PREEMPTION.
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona Employment Law Handbook Chapter 2 Traditional Labor Law Article 2.3 Preemption, Arbitration, and Fair Representation
    • Invalid date
    ...538 (1945); Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New York Labor Relations Bd., 330 U.S. 767 (1947).[19] Street Emps. v. Wisconsin Emp't Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 383 (1951); see also Milk Wagon Drivers Union of Chicago, Local 753 v. Meadowmoor Dairies, Inc., 312 U.S. 287 (1941).[20] See, e.g., Meadowmoor D......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT