Some Observations About the Standards Applied to Labor Injunction Litigation Under Sections 10 (j) and 10 (l) of the National Labor Relations Act

Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 59, pp. 565-581, 1984

17 Pages Posted: 9 Jul 2009

See all articles by George Schatzki

George Schatzki

Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law

Date Written: 1984

Abstract

Recently, I gave a lecture to a seminar of federal judges. In preparing the talk, I confirmed what I had suspected at first impression: the judiciary has reverted significantly, although not universally, to some practices of pre-Norris-LaGuardia days. In dealing with the NLRA's sections 10(l) and 10(j), the courts often practice two standards. As for section 10(l), which is aimed almost entirely at unions, federal courts are inclined virtually to rubber-stamp National Labor Relations Board requests for injunctions. However, in considering applications for section 10j) injunctions, which are primarily aimed at employers, the courts are inclined, especially when employers are the respondents, to be more critical of the Board's petition and, as a result, often deny or significantly qualify the requested relief. The Norris-LaGuardia Act was enacted to prevent federal courts from interfering with union activities. Serving as a backdrop to sections 10 (1) and 10(), the Norris-LaGuardia Act suggests that, if there were to be a double standard, it would work in a manner opposite to the one that has evolved. The first two sections of this article briefly summarize the events leading to the Norris-LaGuardia Act and to the enactment of the two explicit exceptions in the National Labor Relations Act. Next, I attempt to set out and critique what the courts are doing. Finally, I urge standards which I think should be applied to both section 10(l) and section 10(0) cases.

Keywords: National Labor Relations Act, labor injunction, Norris-LaGuardia Act

Suggested Citation

Schatzki, George, Some Observations About the Standards Applied to Labor Injunction Litigation Under Sections 10 (j) and 10 (l) of the National Labor Relations Act (1984). Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 59, pp. 565-581, 1984, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1432036

George Schatzki (Contact Author)

Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law ( email )

Box 877906
Tempe, AZ 85287-7906
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
33
Abstract Views
756
PlumX Metrics