Taft-Hartley Sections 301 and 303 Procedural Aspects

Authors

Joseph F. DiRisio
Joseph Martin Jr.

First Page

374

Abstract

The motives and purposes behind the binate Sections 301 and 303, no less than other sections of the Taft-Hartley Act,' are mixed and ambiguous. Foremost, however, seems the notion that Congress intended to create new federal rights, contract and tort, enforceable nationally in a federal forum. In broad terms, where the required relationship to interstate commerce exists, Section 301 permits suits by either employers or unions for violation of collective bargaining agreements; Section 303 permits those injured by certain boycotts and unlawful combinations to bring suit-- in both cases, the forum provided is the district court of the United States. It is not the purpose of this Note to discuss the elements or validity of a collective bargaining agreement or a breach thereof, nor of concern is the problem of the existence of the prohibited boycotts and combinations. The procedural provisions of Section 301 are incorporated by specific reference in Section 303. Subject to the always inherent difficulties of distinguishing substance from procedure, this Note will be concerned with procedural aspects of suits under the binate sections.

Recommended Citation

Joseph F. DiRisio and Joseph Martin Jr., Taft-Hartley Sections 301 and 303 Procedural Aspects, 7 Vanderbilt Law Review 374 (1954)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol7/iss3/5