Term: 2013
Docket: 12-99
Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall
- Pro
12-99 UNITE HERE LOCAL 355 V. MULHALL DECISION BELOW: 667 F.3d 1211 DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. CERT. GRANTED 6/24/2013 QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 302 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186 -the federal labor anti-bribery statute -makes it criminal for an employer "to pay, lend, or deliver ... any money or other thing of value" to a labor union that seeks to represent its employees, and prohibits the labor union from receiving the same. The Third and Fourth Circuits have held that agreements between employers and unions that set ground rules for union organizing campaigns -including employer promises to remain neutral and recognize the union upon a showing of majority support, and union promises to forego the rights to picket, boycott, or otherwise put pressure on the employer's business -are not "payment" of "things of value" proscribed by § 302. The Third Circuit found that a contrary holding would "wreak havoc on the carefully balanced structure of the laws governing recognition of and bargaining with unions." Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees, Local 57 v. Sage Hospitality Resources, LLC, 390 F.3d 206, 219 (3d Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 1944 (2005). In this case, however, the Eleventh Circuit came to the opposite conclusion. The question presented is: Whether an employer and union may violate § 302 by entering into an agreement under which the employer exercises its freedom of speech by promising to remain neutral to union organizing, its property rights by granting union representatives limited access to the employer's property and employees, and its freedom of contract by obtaining the union's promise to forego its rights to picket, boycott, or otherwise put pressure on the employer's business? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-10594
In the case of UNITE HERE Local 355 v. Mulhall, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether an agreement between a union and employer violated federal labor law. The union had agreed not to picket or boycott the employer's business in exchange for assistance with organizing employees, including access to property and employee contact information. Martin Mulhall, an employee of Mardi Gras Gaming (the company involved), argued that this arrangement constituted a "thing of value" under Section 302 of the Labor-Management Relations Act - which prohibits employers from delivering any money or other thing of value to a labor organization that represents its employees - thus making it illegal. The lower courts were divided on whether such agreements could be considered as things of value under Section 302; however, before reaching a decision on this matter, the Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot because Mulhall did not have standing – he failed to demonstrate sufficient personal stake in outcome beyond ideological opposition.
In the dissenting opinion for UNITE HERE Local 355 v. Mulhall, Justice Breyer argued that the case was not ripe for review because it did not present a substantial federal question. He contended that there was no clear evidence of an actual or imminent harm to any party involved in the dispute and thus, there were insufficient grounds to invoke jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Furthermore, he pointed out that even if such harm existed, it would be speculative at best since it depended on several uncertain future events. Therefore, he concluded that dismissing the writ as improvidently granted would have been a more prudent course of action rather than prematurely deciding on complex issues related to labor law and policy.
