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
- 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.
- 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.