ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

29 U.S.C. § 104Enumeration of specific acts not subject to restraining orders or injunctions

submitted 94 years ago by ch. 90 to r/title-29-LABOR · 295 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

Federal courts cannot issue a restraining order or injunction against people involved in a labor dispute to stop them from doing certain listed things. Those protected acts include refusing to work, joining or staying in a union, giving or withholding strike benefits, helping someone in a related lawsuit, publicizing the dispute peacefully, organizing or assembling peacefully, and telling, advising, or agreeing with others to do any of these things.

No U.S. court may issue a restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction, in any case arising from a labor dispute, to stop a person involved in that dispute — acting alone or together with others — from doing any of the following: (a) Stopping work or ending an employment relationship; (b) Joining or staying a member of a labor organization or an employer organization, no matter what promise they may have made as described in section 103; (c) Paying, giving, or withholding strike or unemployment benefits, insurance, or other money or things of value, to or from someone involved in the dispute; (d) Lawfully helping someone involved in the dispute who is suing or being sued in any U.S. or state court; (e) Publicizing facts about the labor dispute, whether by advertising, speaking, patrolling, or any other method that doesn't involve fraud or violence; (f) Peacefully gathering or organizing to promote their interests in the dispute; (g) Telling or warning someone that they intend to do any of the acts listed above; (h) Agreeing with others to do, or not do, any of the acts listed above; and (i) Advising, urging, or otherwise (without fraud or violence) causing someone to do the acts listed above — regardless of any promise described in section 103.
the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain

No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute to prohibit any person or persons participating or interested in such dispute (as these terms are herein defined) from doing, whether singly or in concert, any of the following acts:

(a)

Ceasing or refusing to perform any work or to remain in any relation of employment;

(b)

Becoming or remaining a member of any labor organization or of any employer organization, regardless of any such undertaking or promise as is described in section 103 of this title;

(c)

Paying or giving to, or withholding from, any person participating or interested in such labor dispute, any strike or unemployment benefits or insurance, or other moneys or things of value;

(d)

By all lawful means aiding any person participating or interested in any labor dispute who is being proceeded against in, or is prosecuting, any action or suit in any court of the United States or of any State;

(e)

Giving publicity to the existence of, or the facts involved in, any labor dispute, whether by advertising, speaking, patrolling, or by any other method not involving fraud or violence;

(f)

Assembling peaceably to act or to organize to act in promotion of their interests in a labor dispute;

(g)

Advising or notifying any person of an intention to do any of the acts heretofore specified;

(h)

Agreeing with other persons to do or not to do any of the acts heretofore specified; and

(i)

Advising, urging, or otherwise causing or inducing without fraud or violence the acts heretofore specified, regardless of any such undertaking or promise as is described in section 103 of this title.

Source credit: (Mar. 23, 1932, ch. 90, § 4, 47 Stat. 70.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 1932Enacted · Act of Mar. 23, 1932, ch. 90 · 47 Stat. 70

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by ch. 90 on 1932-03-23.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case