International Ass'n of Machinists v. Street

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 05:35, 16 August 2016 (Dating maintenance tags: {{Sect-stub}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Machinists v. Street
Argued April 21, 1960
Reargued January 17–18, 1961
Decided June 19, 1961
Full case nameInternational Association of Machinists, et al. v. Street, et al.
Citations367 U.S. 740 (more)
81 S.Ct. 1784; 6 L.Ed.2d 1141
Case history
PriorAppeal from the Supreme Court of Georgia
Holding
A union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shop only for the costs of performing the union's statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas · Tom C. Clark
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
Charles E. Whittaker · Potter Stewart
Case opinions
PluralityBrennan, joined by Warren, Clark, Stewart
ConcurrenceDouglas
Concur/dissentWhittaker
DissentBlack
DissentFrankfurter, joined by Harlan

Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 (1961), was a US labor law decision by the United States Supreme Court on labor union freedom to make collective agreements with employers to enroll workers in union membership, or collect fees for the service of collective bargaining.

Facts

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that “a union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shop only for the costs of performing the union's statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent.”

See also

Further reading

  • Cordish, D. S. (1962). "Interpretation of Statutes to Avoid Constitutional Questions re Labor Union Political Contributions". Maryland Law Review. 22: 348. ISSN 0025-4282.
  • Wellington, Harry H. (1961). "Machinists v. Street: Statutory Interpretation and the Avoidance of Constitutional Issues". Supreme Court Review. 1961. The University of Chicago Press: 49–73. JSTOR 3108714.