Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn
375 U.S. 96 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act permits states not only to prohibit union-security agreements like agency shops but also to provide state-based remedies through their own courts to enforce such prohibitions.
Facts:
- Retail Clerks International Association, Local 1625, AFL-CIO (the union) and an employer negotiated a collective bargaining agreement in Florida.
- The agreement contained an 'agency shop' clause.
- This clause required employees covered by the contract who chose not to join the union to pay an initial service fee and monthly service fees to the union as a condition of their continued employment.
- The Florida Constitution contains a 'right to work' provision that prohibits such union-security agreements.
- Several non-union employees, including Schermerhorn, were subject to this agency shop clause.
Procedural Posture:
- Non-union employees brought suit against the union in a Florida state trial court.
- The employees sought a declaration that the agency shop clause was illegal, an injunction against its enforcement, and an accounting.
- The Florida Supreme Court, as the state's highest court, held that the agency shop agreement violated the 'right to work' provision of the Florida Constitution.
- The Florida Supreme Court also ruled that state courts possessed jurisdiction to afford a remedy for the violation.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and set the case for reargument on the sole question of whether state courts have jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does § 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, which permits states to prohibit agency shop agreements, also grant state courts jurisdiction to enforce those prohibitions, or is enforcement exclusively vested in the National Labor Relations Board?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, state courts have jurisdiction to enforce state laws prohibiting agency shop agreements. Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act explicitly carves out an exception to federal preemption, allowing states to prohibit and enforce their own laws against compulsory unionism. The court reasoned that it would be illogical for Congress to permit states to prohibit agency shop clauses under § 14(b) but simultaneously deny them the power to enforce those prohibitions. The legislative history of the Taft-Hartley Act shows that Congress intended to preserve state authority in this specific area, not to preempt it. The Court distinguished this case from the general preemption rule in San Diego Council v. Garmon, which holds that matters arguably subject to federal labor law are exclusively for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Here, § 14(b) represents a specific congressional directive to give 'right of way to state laws.' The court clarified, however, that state jurisdiction begins only with the actual negotiation and execution of a prohibited agreement; conduct preceding an agreement, such as picketing to obtain one, remains within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRB.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a significant exception to the doctrine of federal preemption in labor law, specifically limiting the reach of the Garmon preemption rule. By affirming state court jurisdiction to enforce 'right-to-work' laws, the Court empowered states to create and enforce a parallel regulatory scheme for union-security agreements. This ruling ensures that state prohibitions on such agreements are not merely symbolic but are backed by the full enforcement power of state judiciaries, leading to a 'medley of attitudes and philosophies' on union security across the country rather than a uniform federal standard.
