Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall
- Name the case and the docket number.
The case I chose is called Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall. The docket number is 12-99.
- Summarize the issues in the case.
This case is primarily concerned with the issue of violating Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Section 302 states that it is illegal for an employer to pay, lend, deliver any money or a “thing of value” to a labor union. The whole purpose of this Section was to reduce corruption in unions, as the money they received from employers was not always spent wisely. In this case, however, the argument is whether or not the labor union was being corrupt with the money, and whether or not the assistance of the employer to the union actually violated Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act. In this case, the employer was not actually giving money to the union but providing other nonmaterial things that have high value, such as access to the workplace and employee information.
- Why does this case interest you?
This case interests me because I have never really gained a full understanding of the relationship between unions and businesses. This was an excellent chance for me to obtain an ample understanding of the various agreements and the different laws that pertain to labor unions. I was able to get a glimpse into what the Labor Management Relations Act actually entails.
- If you were on the court, how would you decide this case?
If I were in the court, I would decide that providing any substance with monetary value capable of corrupting the union is a violation of Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act and therefore unconstitutional. Firstly, the employer should not have provided the union access to the workplace. Not only did they do that, but they also gave the union a list of employees that can help strengthen their cause. Secondly, the union in return promised the ballot initiative in gambling to the employer. Both the union and the employer had violated Section 302 of the LMRA, and it does not seem logical for the Supreme Court to allow this to pass.