Teamsters Local Union No. 559, Etc.

Teamsters Union v. Oliver
358 U.S. 283 (1959) Cited 166 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Teamsters v. Oliver, 358 U.S. 283 (1959), we held that a state antitrust law could not be used to challenge an employer-union agreement. Justice White's opinion in Jewel Tea explains, however, that Oliver held only that "[a]s the agreement did not embody a `"remote and indirect approach to the subject of wages'... but a direct frontal attack upon a problem thought to threaten the maintenance of the basic wage structure established by the collective bargaining contract,' [358 U.S.], at 294, the paramount federal policy of encouraging collective bargaining proscribed application of the state law.
Teamsters Union v. Oliver
362 U.S. 605 (1960) Cited 11 times
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. No. 813. Decided May 16, 1960. Ohio's antitrust law may not be applied to prevent the contracting parties from carrying out a collective bargaining agreement upon a subject matter as to which the National Labor Relations Act directs them to bargain. Teamsters Union v. Oliver, 358 U.S. 283. Therefore, certiorari is granted and the judgment below is reversed. Pp. 605-606. 170 Ohio St. 207, 163 N.E.2d 383, reversed. David Previant, Robert