Local 24, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Oliver

Supreme Court

Local 24, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Oliver

362 U.S. 605, 80 S. Ct. 923, 4 L. Ed. 2d 987, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1932, 14 Ohio Op. 2d 277, 46 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2180, 1960 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,718

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 16, 1960

Docket813

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 362 U.S. 605 (Local 24, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Oliver) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Local 24, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Oliver, 362 U.S. 605, 80 S. Ct. 923, 4 L. Ed. 2d 987, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1932, 14 Ohio Op. 2d 277, 46 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2180, 1960 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,718 (1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to use the record in No. 49, October Term, 1958, is granted. The petition for certiorari is also granted. After our remand to the Court of Appeals of the State of Ohio, Ninth Judicial District, for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court, 358 U. S. 283, the Court of Appeals set aside its previous order “as it concerns and applies to Revel Oliver, appellee, as a lessor-driver” but continued the order in full force and effect “as it concerns and applies to Revel Oliver, appellee, as a lessor-owner and employer of drivers of his equipment.” We read the judgment of the Court of Appeals as enjoining petitioners and respondents A. C. E. Transportation Co. and Interstate Truck Service, Inc., from enforcing against respondent Oliver those parts of Article *606 32 which provide that hired or leased equipment, if not owner-driven, shall be operated only by employees of the certificated or permitted carriers and require those carriers to use their own available equipment before hiring any extra equipment. Art. XXXII, §§ 4 and 5, 358 U. S., at 298-299. While we do not think the issue was tendered to us when the case was last here, we are of opinion that these provisions are at least as intimately bound up with the subject of wages as the minimum rental provisions we passed on then. Accordingly, as in the previous case, we hold that Ohio’s antitrust law here may not “be applied to prevent the contracting parties from carrying out their agreement upon a subject matter as to which federal law directs them to bargain.” 358 U. S., at 295.

The judgment accordingly is

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Whittaker dissents. Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to use the record in No. 49, October Term, 1958, is granted. The petition for certiorari is also granted. After our remand to the Court of Appeals of the State of Ohio, Ninth Judicial District, for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court, 358 U. S. 283, the Court of Appeals set aside its previous order “as it concerns and applies to Revel Oliver, appellee, as a lessor-driver” but continued the order in full force and effect “as it concerns and applies to Revel Oliver, appellee, as a lessor-owner and employer of drivers of his equipment.” We read the judgment of the Court of Appeals as enjoining petitioners and respondents A. C. E. Transportation Co. and Interstate Truck Service, Inc., from enforcing against respondent Oliver those parts of Article *606 32 which provide that hired or leased equipment, if not owner-driven, shall be operated only by employees of the certificated or permitted carriers and require those carriers to use their own available equipment before hiring any extra equipment. Art. XXXII, §§ 4 and 5, 358 U. S., at 298-299. While we do not think the issue was tendered to us when the case was last here, we are of opinion that these provisions are at least as intimately bound up with the subject of wages as the minimum rental provisions we passed on then. Accordingly, as in the previous case, we hold that Ohio’s antitrust law here may not “be applied to prevent the contracting parties from carrying out their agreement upon a subject matter as to which federal law directs them to bargain.” 358 U. S., at 295.

The judgment accordingly is

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Whittaker dissents. Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 U.S. 605, 80 S. Ct. 923, 4 L. Ed. 2d 987, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1932, 14 Ohio Op. 2d 277, 46 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2180, 1960 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/local-24-international-brotherhood-of-teamsters-v-oliver-scotus-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack