29 U.S.C. § 163
Right to strike preserved
Nothing in this subchapter, except as specifically provided for herein, shall be construed so as either to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to strike, or to affect the limitations or qualifications on that right.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 102
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1936–2024 · leading case: Pattern Makers' League v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 473 U.S. 95 (1985).
Pattern Makers' League v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 473 U.S. 95 (1985). “" 29 U. S. C. § 163 . The strike or the threat to strike is the workers' most effective means of pressuring employers, and so lies at the center of the collective activity protected by the Act.”
Litton Fin. Printing Div., Litton Bus. Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991). “Under § 13 of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 163 , the Act may not be construed to interfere with a union's right to strike.”
Lodge 76, Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 427 U.S. 132 (1976). “23, that § 13 of the NLRA, 29 U. S. C. § 163 , which guarantees a qualified right to strike, is not an independent limitation on state power apart from its context in the structure of the Act.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local Union No. 103, Int'l Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, 434 U.S. 335 (1978). “[4] And such a tortured construction would be patently inconsistent with § 13 of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 163 , which "is a command of Congress to the courts to resolve doubts and ambiguities in favor of an interpretation .”
Belknap, Inc. v. Hale, 463 U.S. 491 (1983). “"The economic strike against the employer is the ultimate weapon in labor's arsenal for achieving agreement upon its terms . . . ." NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co.”
Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 350 U.S. 270 (1956). “151 , 29 U. S. C. § 163 . On the basis of the above language, petitioners claim that because the contract-waiver clause prohibits all strikes of every nature, nothing in the Act may be construed to affect the "limitations or qualifications" which the contract thus places on that…”
Am. Ship Bldg. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 380 U.S. 300 (1965). “): "Nothing in this subchapter, except as specifically provided for herein, shall be construed so as either to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to strike, or to affect the limitations or qualifications on that right." [10] Of course to the extent that…”
Green River Cmty. Coll. v. Higher Educ. Pers. Bd., 622 P.2d 826 (Wash. 1980). “This is particularly true of higher education employees, since the right to strike is specifically disclaimed under the statute.”
Glacier Nw., Inc. v. Teamsters, 598 U.S. 771 (2023). “The National Labor Rela- Page Proof Pending Publication tions Act (NLRA) protects the right to strike, but that right is subject to certain limitations and qualifcations, see 29 U. S. C. § 163 , and this Court's decisions make clear that the Act does not protect striking…”
United Mine Workers of Am. v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 351 U.S. 62 (1956). “151 , 29 U. S. C. § 163 . See also, Labor Board v.”
Midwest Motor Express, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 120, 512 N.W.2d 881 (Minn. 1994). “29 U.S.C. § 163 . The NLRA prohibits employers from discharging or disciplining employees for exercising their right to strike.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ins. Agents' Int'l Union, 361 U.S. 477 (1960). “151 , 29 U. S. C. § 163 . And if it is so applied, the union argues that § 13 would prevent the Board from considering the conduct in question as an unfair labor practice.”
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.