|
''Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees,'' 468 U.S. 491 (1984), is a 4-to-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that a New Jersey state gaming law requiring union leaders to be of good moral character was not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).〔Lee and Chelius, "Government Regulation of Labor-Management Corruption: The Casino Industry Experience in New Jersey," ''Industrial and Labor Relations Review,'' July 1989.〕 ==Background== In 1976, New Jersey amended their state constitution to permit casino gambling in Atlantic City. On June 2, 1977, Governor Brendan Byrne signed the Casino Control Act (N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 5:12-1 et seq.) into law.〔Waggoner, "Casino Unit's Power Is Termed Absolute," ''New York Times,'' June 4, 1977.〕 The act established the New Jersey Casino Control Commission and instituted comprehensive regulation of casino gambling—including the regulation of labor unions representing gaming industry employees. In an attempt to forestall organized crime influence over labor unions, Sections 86 and 93 of the act imposed certain qualifications on officials of labor organizations representing casino industry workers. Among these qualifications were that the official be of "good moral character," not been convicted of certain felonies, and was not associated with organized crime. If a labor union's leaders did not meet these criteria, the union was prohibited from collecting or receiving dues from its members and from administering pension and welfare funds.〔Janson, "Judges' Reasoning on Casino Unions," ''New York Times,'' June 12, 1983; Mattiace, "State Moves Against Casino Union, Cites Mob," ''Associated Press,'' May 14, 1981.〕 Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 54 represented about 12,000 workers, 10,000 of whom were employed in Atlantic City casinos. Almost all of these casino workers had been organized since the legalization of gambling in the state.〔 On May 13, 1981, the Casino Control Commission found that Frank Gerace, president of Local 54, and Frank Materio, the local's grievance manager, were associated with organized crime. The commission also ruled that Karlos LaSane, the union's business agent, was ineligible to be a union officer or agent because he had previously been convicted of extortion. The commission also found that union officers refused to cooperate with Casino Control Commission investigators, and held stock in Resorts International, Inc. (which owned one of the casinos in which Local 54 represented workers). Both actions contravened state regulations. The commission feared that Local 54 was being influenced by Nicodemo "Little Nicky" Scarfo, a reputed leader of the Scarfo organized crime "family" based in Philadelphia.〔 National and state AFL-CIO officials, fearing the New Jersey law might open the door to extensive new state regulation of labor unions, asked Local 54 to test the New Jersey law in court. After a regulatory appeal, the Casino Control Commission unanimously rejected the union's contention that the law was unconstitutional and preempted by the NLRA.〔Janson, "Casino Agency Rebuts Attack by Local Union," ''New York Times,'' August 6, 1981.〕 Local 54 then filed suit in federal district court, seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of the act. At trial, the union argued that the law infringed on its members' constitutional right of freedom of association and was preempted by federal labor law. The state countered that the regulation was a permissible infringement of the freedom of association because keeping criminal elements out of the gaming industry was a compelling governmental interest.〔 On March 22, 1982, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held (536 F. Supp. 317, (1982)) that the New Jersey statute was not unconstitutionally vague and did not impermissibly infringe on union members' First Amendment rights. The union appealed. While the appeal was pending, the Casino Control Commission ordered Gerace and Materio to vacate their union positions. The commission demanded that both men relinquish their union offices by October 12, 1982, or the local would not be permitted to collect dues or administer its pension plan.〔Wade, "Leaders Ordered Out of Casino Workers' Union," ''Associated Press,'' September 28, 1982.〕 On June 30, 1983, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled (709 F.2d 815 (1983)) 2-to-1 that the district court had erred. The appellate court granted the union's injunction, finding that Section 93 of the act was preempted by Section 7 of the NLRA.〔〔Janson, "Court Hears Appeal by Casino Union," ''New York Times,'' November 21, 1982.〕 The Court of Appeals relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in ''Hill v. Florida ex rel. Watson'', 325 U.S. 538 (1945), when it concluded that Section 7 conferred "an unfettered right on employees to choose the officials of their own bargaining representatives."〔468 U.S. 491, 504.〕 The state sought a rehearing ''en banc,'' but the entire court of appeals refused to rehear the case after it deadlocked in a 5-to-5 vote.〔〔Janson, "Court Won't Rehear Case on Casino Union Control," ''New York Times,'' July 6, 1983.〕 The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari (464 U.S. 990 (1983)). 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|