Abstract

Since its passage in 1947, the Supreme Court has understood Section 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act as a Congressional mandate to create a body of federal common law regulating private sector labor management disputes arising out of collective bargaining agreements. In light of this established labor law jurisprudence and the 50th anniversary of the landmark Steel Workers Trilogy, this past Term Granite Rock v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters opted for stability, declining to recognize a federal tort claim arising under Section 301(a). The Court was anything but definitive, deeming it premature to consider the tort dimension. This article focuses especially on why the Court should have taken the opportunity to define whether Section 301(a)’s scope extended to tort claims.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.