Supreme Court of the United States
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson
June 18, 1962370 U.S. 195
Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Sinclair Refining’s suit, holding that § 301 of the Taft‑Hartley Act does not repeal the anti‑injunction provisions of § 4 of the Norris‑LaGuardia Act, so federal courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin strikes arising from labor disputes even when the dispute is subject to a collective‑bargaining agreement. Justice Brennan’s dissent argues that the statutes should be accommodated to allow injunctions where necessary to enforce arbitration provisions.
Holding
- Whether § 301 of the Taft‑Hartley Act implicitly repeals § 4 of the Norris‑LaGuardia Act’s anti‑injunction provisions.. No; § 301 does not repeal § 4, and the anti‑injunction provisions of the Norris‑LaGuardia Act remain applicable.
Docket 434
Cited authorities
- 61 Stat. 156
- 29 U.S.C. § 185
- 47 Stat. 70
- 29 U.S.C. § 104
- 47 Stat. 73
- 29 U.S.C. § 113
- 47 Stat. 70
- 29 U.S.C. § 102
Cited by
- Zadvydas v. Davis
- Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Communications Workers of America, Afl-Cio, and Local 6222
- Tri-Cities Newspapers, Inc. v. Tri-Cities Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Local 349, International Printing…
- New Orleans Steamship Association, a Corporation, and Ttt Stevedores of Louisiana, Inc., a Corporation v. General…
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America-Airline Di — Goldberg, J…
- Verizon New England, Inc., Plaintiff, Appellant v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 2322…
- John Bowers v. Ulpiano Casal, Inc., Defendants, Appellees
- Volkswagen De Puerto RICO, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Puerto RICO Labor Relations Board, Defendants-Appellees