Neutrality Agreements and Article III Standing: Why Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall is Nonjusticiable

12 Pages Posted: 9 Oct 2013 Last revised: 12 Apr 2014

See all articles by Thomas Frampton

Thomas Frampton

University of Virginia School of Law

Date Written: October 7, 2013

Abstract

Next month, the Supreme Court will consider whether union-employer "neutrality agreements" run afoul of Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act. One facet of this dispute, however, has been overlooked: Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall is not a "case or controversy" at all. Martin Mulhall, the Florida casino worker hoping to block the enforcement of a neutrality agreement between his employer and Local 355, lacks standing.

Suggested Citation

Frampton, Thomas, Neutrality Agreements and Article III Standing: Why Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall is Nonjusticiable (October 7, 2013). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2336677 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2336677

Thomas Frampton (Contact Author)

University of Virginia School of Law ( email )

580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
155
Abstract Views
4,125
Rank
353,678
PlumX Metrics