Union organizing agreements
Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall
In brief
The Court ended its review without deciding whether the agreement was legal.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · December 10, 2013 · Per curiam
- What it’s about
- Unite Here Local 355 and Mardi Gras Gaming disputed whether their agreement—under which the company would help the union organize workers in return for the union’s promise not to pressure the company—violated the Labor Management Relations Act.
- Who it affects
- The Supreme Court did not decide whether Unite Here Local 355 and Mardi Gras Gaming’s agreement violated the law.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ended its review without deciding that question (dismissed its grant of review as improvidently granted).
The dispute arose under federal labor law governing relations between employers and unions.
Question presented
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?
What the Court decided
Holding
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
- Result
- Dismissed
The vote
- Majority author
- Per Curiam
- Dissenting
- Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor
From the opinions
““to pay, lend, or deliver, or agree to pay, lend, or deliver, any money or other thing of value””
What's next
The Supreme Court's review is over. Its dismissal did not direct another step for the parties or a lower court.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Mulhall
More questions
- What organizing help did the employer promise?
- Justice Breyer's dissent described promises to stay neutral, allow union access to nonpublic areas, and provide employees' names and contact information.
- What did the union promise not to do?
- The union promised not to picket, boycott, or otherwise put pressure on the company's business.
- What did Breyer say Section 302(a) made a crime?
- His dissent said it made it a crime for an employer to give or promise money or another thing of value to a union representing or seeking to represent its employees.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.