Washington Law Review
Abstract
To understand better the tremendous scope of this labyrinthical situation, the following hypothetical, but not usual case is posed: The employees of A are members of B union. They are satisfied with their hours, working conditions, and wages and there is no allegation of any unfair labor practices upon the part of A. C, a rival union, enters the field, contending that the employees should affiliate with it, and, in order to prosecute its point, either pickets A or instigates a boycott. If A's employees were to accede to C's demands, it is highly probable that B would take resort to the same tactics previously employed by C. Thus A is caught in a vicious vise, from the jaws of which he must extricate himself if his business is to survive on a profitable basis. Likewise, his employees are genuinely interested in an amicable agreement, for otherwise their means of livelihood is in jeopardy. The public, too, is injured, as indeed it is whenever industrial strife ensues, and hence must demand a discontinuance of the destructive quarrel. But in most instances there appears no available relief and in all cases it is exceedingly difficult and slow of attainment.
First Page
217
Recommended Citation
Donald R. Colvin,
Comment,
Jurisdictional Disputes,
20 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J.
217
(1945).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol20/iss4/4