请输入您要查询的百科知识:

 

词条 International Ass'n of Machinists v. Street
释义

  1. Facts

  2. Judgment

  3. See also

  4. Further reading

  5. External links

{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=Machinists v. Street
|ArgueDate=April 21
|ArgueYear=1960
|ReargueDateA=January 17
|ReargueDateB=18
|ReargueYear=1961
|DecideDate=June 19
|DecideYear=1961
|FullName=International Association of Machinists, et al. v. Street, et al.
|USVol=367
|USPage=740
|ParallelCitations=81 S. Ct. 1784; 6 L. Ed. 2d 1141; 1961 U.S. LEXIS 1997
|Prior=Appeal from the Supreme Court of Georgia
|Subsequent=
|Holding=A union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shop only for the costs of performing the union's statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent.
|SCOTUS=1958-1962
|Plurality=Brennan
|JoinPlurality=Warren, Clark, Stewart
|Concurrence=Douglas
|Concurrence/Dissent=Whittaker
|Dissent=Black
|Dissent2=Frankfurter
|JoinDissent2=Harlan
|LawsApplied=
}}

International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 (1961), was a US labor law decision by the United States Supreme Court on labor union freedom to make collective agreements with employers to enroll workers in union membership, or collect fees for the service of collective bargaining.

Facts

{{Expand section|date=August 2016}}

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that "a union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shop only for the costs of performing the union's statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent."

See also

  • US labor law
  • Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering
  • List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 367

Further reading

  • {{Cite journal |last=Cordish |first=D. S. |author-link= |year=1962 |title=Interpretation of Statutes to Avoid Constitutional Questions re Labor Union Political Contributions |journal=Maryland Law Review |volume=22 |issue= |pages=348 |url= |issn=0025-4282 |doi= }}
  • {{Cite journal |last=Wellington |first=Harry H. |author-link= |year=1961 |title=Machinists v. Street: Statutory Interpretation and the Avoidance of Constitutional Issues |journal=Supreme Court Review |volume=1961 |issue= |pages=49–73 |jstor= 3108714|issn= |doi= |publisher=The University of Chicago Press }}

External links

  • {{caselaw source

| case = International Ass'n of Machinists v. Street, {{ussc|367|740|1961|el=no}}
| courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/106288/machinists-v-street/
| findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/367/740.html
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16218813564309818799
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/740/case.html
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep367/usrep367740/usrep367740.pdf{{SCOTUS-case-stub}}

5 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court|United States labor case law|1961 in United States case law|International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

随便看

 

开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。

 

Copyright © 2023 OENC.NET All Rights Reserved
京ICP备2021023879号 更新时间:2024/11/13 19:34:49