In the interpretation of this chapter and in determining the jurisdiction and authority of the courts of the United States, as such jurisdiction and authority are defined and limited in this chapter, the public policy of the United States is declared as follows:
Whereas under prevailing economic conditions, developed with the aid of governmental authority for owners of property to organize in the corporate and other forms of ownership association, the individual unorganized worker is commonly helpless to exercise actual liberty of contract and to protect his freedom of labor, and thereby to obtain acceptable terms and conditions of employment, wherefore, though he should be free to decline to associate with his fellows, it is necessary that he have full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of his own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of his employment, and that he shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; therefore, the following definitions of, and limitations upon, the jurisdiction and authority of the courts of the United States are enacted.
Notes of Decisions
Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018).
· cites it 4× “That statute declares unenforceable contracts in conflict with its policy of protecting workers’ “concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,” 29 U. S. C. §102 , and just as under the NLRA, that policy does not con- flict…”
Brady v. Nat'l Football League, 644 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 8× “Section 2 declares, among other things, that the "individual unorganized worker" shall be free from the interference of employers in "the designation of ... representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other…”
Buffalo Forge Co. v. United Steelworkers, 428 U.S. 397 (1976).
· cites it 2× “70 , 29 U. S. C. § 102 . [7] In Boys Markets the Court quoted with approval the following statement by the neutral members of the Special Atkinson-Sinclair Committee of the American Bar Association Labor Relations Law Section: " `Any proposal which would subject unions to…”
Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 437 U.S. 556 (1978).
· cites it 2× “70 , 29 U. S. C. § 102 , which declares that it is the public policy of the United States that workers "shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of .”
Fatemeh Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2014).
“29 U.S.C. § 102 . 2 . Section 7 currently provides: Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the…”
California Ex Rel. Brown v. Safeway, Inc., 615 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 4× “That balance results from the now well-established functioning of the bargaining processa process the operation of which has been authorized by Congress after balancing the rights of employers and their employees, and adopting a system it deemed fair to both sides.”
Morvant v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., 870 F. Supp. 2d 831 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Horton, the NLRB relied, not just the on NLRA, but also the Norris *843 LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 102 et seq., a statute that restricts the power of federal courts to issue injunctions to prohibit certain activities.”
Lauf v. E. G. Shinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323 (1938).
· cites it 2× “In the interpretation of this chapter and in determining the jurisdiction and authority of the courts of the United States, as such jurisdiction and authority are defined and limited in this chapter, the public policy of the United States is hereby declared as follows: "Whereas…”
Patterson v. Raymours Furniture Co., 659 F. App'x 40 (2d Cir. 2016).
“29 U.S.C. § 102 (emphasis added). Section 3 enforces Section 2: "any [] undertaking or promise in conflict with the public policy declared in [Section 2] .”
Sharon Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 702 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2013).
“” Owen contends that the passage of that Act amounted to a congressional declaration that it was the “ ‘public policy of the United States’ .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.