United States v. United Mine Workers of America
- Decided
- March 6, 1947
- Docket
- 759
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,872 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that every court has the power to determine if it has the capacity to hear and decide the merits of the case before it — Ehre v. People of New York Ex Rel. Hennessy (In Re Adirondack Railway Corp.) (1983)
- holding that a party may be punished for disobeying a court order even if the court was ultimately determined to lack jurisdiction to issue the order — Bridgeport Guardians, Inc. v. Delmonte (2008)
- holding that, as sovereign, Virginia agency is not a “person” capable of bringing suit under § 1983 — Michael Peck v. U.S. Department of Labor (2021)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson delivered the opinion of the Court.
In October, 1946, the United States was in possession of, and operating, the major portion of the country’s bituminous coal mines.[1] Terms and conditions of employment [*263] were controlled “for the period of Government possession” by an agreement[2] entered into on May 29, 1946, between Secretary of the Interior Krug, as Coal Mines Administrator, and John L. Lewis, as President of the United Mine Workers of America.[3] The Krug-Lewis agreement embodied far-reaching changes favorable to the miners;[4] and, except as amended and supplemented therein, the agreement carried forward the terms and conditions of the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of April 11, 1945.[5]
[*264] On October 21, 1946, the defendant Lewis directed a letter to Secretary Krug and presented issues which led directly to the present controversy. According to the defendant Lewis, the Krug-Lewis agreement carried forward § 15 of the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of April 11, 1945. Under that section either party to the contract was privileged to give ten days’ notice in writing of a desire for a negotiating conference which the other party was required to attend; fifteen days after the beginning of the conference either party might give notice in writing of the termination of the agreement, effective five days after receipt of such notice. Asserting authority under this clause, the defendant Lewis in his letter of October 21 requested that a conference begin November 1 for the purpose of negotiating new arrangements concerning wages, hours, practices, and other pertinent matters appertaining to the bituminous coal industry.[6]
Statutes cited
- 1 U.S.C. § 1
- 28 U.S.C. § 400
- 29 U.S.C. § 101
- 29 U.S.C. § 52
- 28 U.S.C. § 41
Cite this
United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 (1947)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.