No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
The dominant congressional objective behind the enactment of Section 301 of the LMRA appears to have been a relatively simple one, namely, to eliminate certain technical obstacles to suits for breach of collective bargaining agreements. 8 8Such obstacles had been particularly formidable in actions at law because of the common law requirement that all members of a union be joined as parties defendant or parties plaintiff 189 and because of the failure in actions at law to shape the class suit into a device for satisfying or avoiding restrictive common law requirements.Congress, whose primary purpose was to facilitate actions against unions, neglected federal-state relationships as well as the relationship between judicial and administrative competence.As a result, the congressional effort at simplification has paradoxically increased the complexities surrounding the enforcement of collective bargaining agreements.Subsection 301 (a) provides:Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce.. ., or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.Although the quoted language appears to be only a grant of jurisdiction, it should be noted that the standards for vicarious responsibility embodied in t Part I of this article, which is
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.