Right to Strike

"This question is of major importance in the negotiation and administration of hundreds of collective-bargaining agreements throughout the country." So said Chief Justice Earl Warren last week, as the U.S. Supreme Court settled the question of whether the Taft-Hartley Act bars all strikes for the duration of a contract. The court, in the unanimous opinion written by Justice Warren, held that unions can strike to back up demands made under reopener clauses in long-term con tracts even though the contract has not expired--provided that they give the 60-day notice required by Taft-Hartley.

The court's decision cleared up a dispute between the Lion Oil Co. of El Dorado, Ark. and the Oil Workers International Union, which called a strike to back up demands in 1952, when their long-term contract could be opened for modification. Though the union gave the required 60 days' notice, the company held that it violated the Taft-Hartley Act because the contract had merely been reopened, not terminated. The National Labor Relations Board ruled in favor of the union, but a circuit court overruled NLRB. By ruling that the term "expiration date" can refer to the time when a contract reopens as well as to when it terminates, the Supreme Court cleared away the legal underbrush hampering the spread of long-term contracts with reopener clauses.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.