29 U.S.C. § 151

Findings and declaration of policy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

The denial by some employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce; (b) occurring in the current of commerce; (c) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of commerce.

The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract, and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries.

Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees.

Experience has further demonstrated that certain practices by some labor organizations, their officers, and members have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by preventing the free flow of goods in such commerce through strikes and other forms of industrial unrest or through concerted activities which impair the interest of the public in the free flow of such commerce. The elimination of such practices is a necessary condition to the assurance of the rights herein guaranteed.

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3,945 cases (166 in the last 5 years), 1935–2026 · leading case: California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) cal · cites it 18× “It further concluded, contrary to the trial court, that the Ordinance was also preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or the Act) ( 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.) because, in the majority‘s view, federal labor law guaranteed successor employers the right to pick and…”

Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018) scotus · cites it 4× “, permit employers to insist that their employees, whenever seeking redress for commonly expe- rienced wage loss, go it alone, never mind the right secured to employees by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U. S. C. §151 et seq., “to engage in .”

Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. (1981) scotus · cites it 4× “The national policy favoring collective bargaining and industrial self-government was first expressed in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. (the Wagner Act).”

Interpipe Contracting, Inc. v. Xavier Becerra (2018) ca9 · cites it 3× “BECERRA 11 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. They argued that the law regulates in an area Congress intended to leave to the free play of market forces, and is preempted by the NLRA’s prohibition on regulating non-coercive labor speech.”

City of Philadelphia v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 22 (2010) pa · cites it 6× “[13] With respect to the circumstances that led to Act 111's enactment, by the late 1930s, Pennsylvania's private sector employees enjoyed the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, said right emanating from the passage of the…”

Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles (1989) scotus · cites it 4× “449 , as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp.”

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Massachusetts (1985) scotus · cites it 3× “449 , as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. (NLRA), because it effectively imposes a contract term on the parties that otherwise would be a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.”

Malone v. White Motor Corp. (1978) scotus · cites it 4× “The Supremacy Clause claim was based on the argument that the Pension Act was in conflict with several provisions of the NLRA, [6] as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., because it "interferes with the right of Plaintiffs to free collective bargaining under federal law and .”

International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States (1977) scotus · cites it 2× “The National Labor Relations Board has reached a similar conclusion in interpreting the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. In Local 269, Electrical Workers, 149 N.”

Horror Inc. v. Miller (2021) ca2 · cites it 2× “12 First, without addressing the Reid factors, the Companies assert that the district court erred in interpreting “employee” under the Copyright Act in a manner that is in meaningful conflict with the National Labor Relations Act, see 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 , et seq. Appellants’ Br.”

Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc. (2011) ca11 · cites it 2× “Quality Inn South, 846 F.2d 700 (11th Cir. 1988), which explicitly held that an illegal alien 12 district court to treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment, see Fed.”

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) scotus · cites it 2× “[6] An FEPA claim is therefore distinguishable from an enforcement action like those conducted by the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. In such a proceeding, the prosecution is controlled by the NLRB's General…”

Show all 3,945 citing cases →

— 29 U.S.C. § 151(b) — 1 case

Greene v. International Typographical Union (1960) ctd

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.