Lodge 76, International Association of Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Labor Law

Labor LawFederal PreemptionCollective BargainingEconomic Self-HelpMachinists preemptionNLRAstate labor regulationeconomic weapons

Facts

After the employer terminated the collective-bargaining agreement, the parties bargained in good faith for over a year over a new agreement, with a major dispute concerning extending the basic workday and workweek from 7 1/2 hours and 37 1/2 hours to 8 hours and 40 hours. When the employer announced it would unilaterally implement the longer schedule, the union authorized a strike and adopted a resolution directing members to refuse overtime, defined as work beyond the old schedule. The employer did not discipline employees, filed a charge with the NLRB, and the Regional Director dismissed it on the ground that the overtime ban did not appear to violate the Act. The employer then pursued relief before the Wisconsin Commission, which treated the concerted refusal to work overtime as an unfair labor practice under state law and ordered it stopped.

Issue

Whether federal labor policy embodied in the National Labor Relations Act pre-empts a state labor board from enjoining a union's peaceful concerted refusal to work overtime used as economic pressure during collective bargaining. More specifically, the question was whether such conduct, though neither plainly protected by § 7 nor prohibited by § 8, must nevertheless remain free from state regulation because Congress intended it to be left to the free play of economic forces.

Rule

States may not regulate peaceful economic self-help used by employers or unions in collective bargaining when Congress intended that conduct to remain unregulated and controlled by the free play of economic forces. NLRA preemption thus extends beyond conduct arguably protected by § 7 or prohibited by § 8 to conduct that federal labor policy leaves available as a permissible economic weapon, except for matters such as violence, threats, or other deeply rooted local concerns.

🔒

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.

After a collective-bargaining agreement expires in Cleveland, unionized technicians at Lakefront Precision Systems continue working their regular shifts while, at the union's direction, refusing all voluntary Sunday overtime during negotiations for a new contract. An Ohio labor board orders the union to stop, reasoning that the refusal is not clearly protected or prohibited by the NLRA and is unlawfully interfering with production.

Is the state order most likely preempted?

Explanation. The order is preempted. The majority held that preemption is not limited to Garmon situations involving conduct arguably protected by § 7 or prohibited by § 8. It also bars state regulation of peaceful economic weapons Congress meant to leave available in bargaining. A peaceful refusal of voluntary overtime used as bargaining pressure is the kind of self-help left to the free play of economic forces, so the state cannot take that weapon away merely because it interferes with production.