Lincoln Federal Labor Union v. Northwestern Iron & Metal Co.
1949 U.S. LEXIS 3023, 93 L. Ed. 2d 212, 335 U.S. 525 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
States have the constitutional power to enact 'right-to-work' laws that prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on their non-membership in a labor union. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid states from passing such laws to safeguard the employment opportunities of non-union workers.
Facts:
- North Carolina enacted a statute and Nebraska adopted a constitutional amendment, both of which are commonly known as 'right-to-work' laws.
- These laws provided that no person shall be denied an opportunity to obtain or retain employment because he is or is not a member of a labor organization.
- The laws also forbade employers from entering into contracts or agreements, often called 'closed shop' or 'union shop' agreements, that obligated them to hire only union members or to require union membership as a condition of continued employment.
- In Nebraska, unions requested employers to discharge certain employees who had failed to maintain their union membership, but the employers refused, citing the new state constitutional amendment.
- In North Carolina, criminal proceedings were initiated against an employer and union officials for entering into an employment agreement that was made illegal by the new state statute.
Procedural Posture:
- In Nebraska, labor unions and employers brought an action in state court seeking a declaratory judgment that the state's 'right-to-work' constitutional amendment was unconstitutional.
- In North Carolina, criminal charges were filed in state court against an employer and union officials for allegedly violating the state's 'right-to-work' statute.
- The Supreme Court of Nebraska upheld the state's constitutional amendment.
- The Supreme Court of North Carolina upheld the state's statute.
- The unions and employers in both cases (the appellants) appealed the decisions of their respective state supreme courts to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do state laws that prohibit employers from entering into contracts which deny employment to individuals based on their non-membership in a labor union violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
No, these state laws do not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. States have the power to legislate against injurious business practices, and this includes prohibiting discrimination against non-union workers. The First Amendment right to assemble does not confer a constitutional right for unions to compel the exclusion of non-union workers from employment. The Court also explicitly rejected the 'Allgeyer-Lochner-Adair-Coppage' constitutional doctrine that broadly protected liberty of contract under the Due Process Clause, noting that the Court has steadily moved away from this philosophy since 1934. Because states can constitutionally pass laws protecting union members from discrimination (e.g., banning 'yellow dog contracts'), they can equally pass laws protecting non-union members. The laws serve a legitimate state interest, command equal opportunities for both groups, and do not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Court's post-Lochner era jurisprudence, which grants broad deference to state economic regulations. By upholding 'right-to-work' laws, the Court confirmed that the Due Process Clause would no longer be used as a substantive check on legislation governing labor relations and business practices. The ruling established the constitutional validity of a key policy for the 'right-to-work' movement, significantly impacting the balance of power between unions and employers in states that chose to enact such legislation. This case affirms that the regulation of employment discrimination, whether for or against union members, falls within the states' police powers.
