## Facts

- A union and an employer were negotiating renewal terms after a collective-bargaining agreement had expired.
- As economic pressure during bargaining, union members engaged in a concerted refusal to work overtime (a partial-strike tactic).
- The employer filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB; the regional office dismissed it, concluding the overtime refusal did not violate the NLRA.
- The employer also filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) under state labor law.
- WERC concluded the overtime refusal, though neither protected nor prohibited by the NLRA, violated state law and issued a cease-and-desist order.
- Wisconsin courts enforced the WERC order.

## Issues

1. Whether federal labor law preempts a state agency from prohibiting a union’s peaceful, concerted refusal to work overtime during collective bargaining when the conduct is neither protected nor prohibited by the NLRA.
2. Whether Congress intended certain economic weapons in labor disputes to be left to the free play of economic forces, barring state regulation even absent NLRA protection or prohibition.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
- The Court held that the union’s overtime refusal was peaceful economic self-help that Congress intended to leave unregulated within the collective-bargaining process.
- State regulation of that tactic was preempted, even though the conduct was neither protected nor prohibited by the NLRA.
- The Court overruled International Union, UAW Local 232 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board (Briggs-Stratton) to the extent it permitted state regulation of comparable economic tactics.

## Legal Principles

- Federal labor policy preempts state regulation of economic self-help tactics that Congress meant to leave unregulated as part of collective bargaining (often termed “Machinists preemption”).
- Preemption is not limited to conduct “arguably protected or prohibited” by the NLRA; it also applies where Congress intended an area of nonregulation to preserve economic pressure tactics for both sides.
- The NLRB’s decision not to treat a bargaining tactic as an unfair labor practice can reflect a federal choice to leave the tactic to bargaining, not an invitation for state prohibition.
- Allowing states to ban or penalize such tactics risks inconsistent local rules that conflict with the national uniformity Congress sought in labor-management relations.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Wisconsin could not prohibit a union’s peaceful concerted refusal to work overtime during bargaining because Congress intended such economic self-help to remain outside governmental control; state intervention would conflict with federal labor policy and is preempted.


Lodge 76, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Wis. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 427 U.S. 132 (1976)