Local 24, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Oliver

Supreme Court of the United States · 1959 · Labor Law

Labor LawFederal preemptionCollective bargainingNLRApreemptionmandatory subjects of bargainingwagesterms and conditions of employment

Facts

A multistate collective bargaining agreement between Teamsters locals and interstate motor carriers included Article XXXII, which regulated the terms under which an owner-driver leased his vehicle to a carrier when he himself drove it in the carrier's service. The Article required separate payment for wages and equipment rental, set minimum equipment-rental rates said to reflect actual operating costs only, and declared its purpose was to protect the union wage scale from being undermined when owner-drivers had to absorb operating losses out of their wages. Revel Oliver, an owner of leased trucking equipment and occasional driver of one of his vehicles, sued in Ohio to stop enforcement of the Article because its lease terms differed from his existing arrangements with the carriers. The Ohio courts treated the Article as an unlawful price-fixing arrangement under state antitrust law and permanently enjoined its enforcement.

Issue

Whether Ohio could apply its antitrust law to prohibit enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement provision regulating minimum rental terms for owner-drivers' leased equipment, when that provision concerned a subject within the scope of mandatory collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act and no violation of federal law was claimed.

Rule

When a collective bargaining agreement provision concerns wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment within the scope of mandatory bargaining under federal labor law, a State may not apply its own law to forbid or invalidate the parties' agreed solution, absent some relevant federal limitation. A provision is within that scope when, in light of its text, history, and purpose, it directly protects the negotiated wage structure rather than merely fixing commercial prices.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Indianapolis, a union representing furniture movers bargains with Crosslake Transfer Lines, a fictional interstate carrier, over employees who use their own dollies and lifting straps while performing moving jobs. The new contract requires the company to pay those workers the full union wage rate plus a separate minimum equipment reimbursement designed to cover actual operating and replacement costs, because low reimbursements had caused workers to absorb job expenses out of their wages.

A state court in Indiana enjoins the reimbursement clause under a state antitrust statute as unlawful price fixing of equipment-use charges. No one claims the clause violates any federal statute. Which is the strongest argument against the injunction?

Explanation. The majority held that a State may not invalidate or enjoin a collectively bargained solution on a subject federal labor law requires the parties to bargain over, absent some relevant federal limitation. A provision is within that protected area when its text, history, purpose, and application show that it directly safeguards wages or working conditions rather than merely fixing commercial prices. Here, the separate minimum reimbursement for employee-owned gear used while performing the job is aimed at preventing wage erosion from unreimbursed work expenses, so the state antitrust injunction is preempted.