Teamsters v. Yellow Transit Freight Lines, Inc.

PETITIONER: Teamsters
RESPONDENT: Yellow Transit Freight Lines, Inc.
LOCATION: South Carolina State House

DOCKET NO.: 13
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1962)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 370 US 711 (1961)
DECIDED: Jun 25, 1962
ARGUED: Oct 11, 1961

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Teamsters v. Yellow Transit Freight Lines, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 11, 1961 in Teamsters v. Yellow Transit Freight Lines, Inc.

Earl Warren:

Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 795, et al.

versus Yellow Transit Freight Lines, Incorporated, et al.

Mr. Previant.

David Previant:

Mr. Chief Justice, if the Court please?

This case is here on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

It presents only one very simple question and that is whether or not the Federal District Courts have the jurisdiction to enjoin peaceful picketing allegedly being conducted in violation of a collective bargaining agreement containing an alleged no-strike clause in view of the provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.

William O. Douglas:

In the interest of the two?

David Previant:

Apparently it isn't.

There is a great dispute between both the practitioners and the theoreticians on that as a result of this Court's recent decision in Lincoln Mills.

The --

Felix Frankfurter:

Was that simple too?

David Previant:

Lincoln Mills [Attempt to Laughter] -- this Court apparently considered a more difficult problem than the Law Review experts have since.

The Federal District --

Felix Frankfurter:

That's the normal course of affairs, that's the normal course of affairs.

David Previant:

Yes, I --

William O. Douglas:

Why don't you say some members of this Court have considered it more difficult?

David Previant:

They probably still in most cases.

The Federal District Court in this case and the Court of Appeals in this case found that the answer was very simple and they held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not preclude the District Court from issuing an injunction under those circumstances.

The facts too are simple and in large measure undisputed.

The petitioner here is the local labor union in Wichita, Kansas.

The respondents here are some six carriers of motor freight, common carriers, who are engaged in the “for-hire transportation” of motor freight between the states and all of whom have a terminal in the City of Wichita, Kansas.

The employees of all of these carriers in the City of Wichita, Kansas, that is the drivers and the warehousemen are members of the petitioner union.

The office and clerical employees are not.

The union and the employer, I'll use the singular for the sake of simplicity, have entered into collective bargaining agreements, one which covers their interstate transportation of goods and one which covers the local transportation of goods in the Wichita area.

They are known respectively as the over-the-road contract and the local cartage contract.

These agreements are multi-employer agreements.

They are negotiated over a wide area with many employers.

It is the identical agreement which was before this Court in a different posture in the (Inaudible) case.

Pertinent to these proceedings are two provisions of that contract.

One is a so-called protection of rights clause which provides that it shall not be a violation of the agreement if employees covered by the agreements refuse to go through a picket line.