Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall (2013)
- Docket
- 12-99
- Decided
- 2013-01-01
Summary
Question: Does an agreement under which the employer promises to facilitate union organization of its employees, and the union promises not to picket, boycott, or otherwise put pressure on the employer's business violate the Labor Management Relations Act? Conclusion: In a per curiam opinion, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that, rather than dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, the Court should have asked for briefs addressing issues antecedent to the one brought up by the case. The Court could then determine whether the case was moot because the contract expired in 2011 and whether Mulhall had Article III standing, as well as whether there is a private right of action in this case. Justice Breyer argued that it was important that the Court address the issues presented in this case because the outcome could negatively affect the collective bargaining process. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent.