◆ SpookStack

y ae | tag tne soca! from functioning as ih labor union unless it complied, “Inconsistent with the ste, ah : prove process of collective bar j gainivgr.” | Spetifically, the Court did not ob- ( fect ‘to the regulation that local lunions file reports, ‘but rather to the sanction imposed. Two Alabama cases, filed by the , AFL and CIO, were dismissed by the court {n opinions read by Chief Justice Stone. The Alabama (Brad- ford) Act does not provide any pen- alty that would prohibit a union Jor a union official from functioning as such in event of non-compliance. | It simply provides criminal pene ties, and the unioms did not chal- legge the right of the state {bp “ ulate labor unions. b | e Court also affirmed, rive & rower court decision that Ia National Labor Relations Board certification of a union as bargain- ‘ing agent may not be reviewed by ‘pg Federal court. - The ruling was made in a tom- { plaint filed by five AFL local saw- mil] unions over an NLAB order certifying rival CIO unions ad the bargaining agent for the employes of five lumber plants at Potlatch Foresis, Inc. Lewiston, Idahe. The high court meanwhile al- lowed the back overtime wage Claims of maintenance employes in one New York City office building, but rejected the claims of those in another butiding. court, In a 7 te 3 yerdict, lowe! claims by employes of Bor Buliding (350 Madison A on “grounds that the buliding housed central office: of piants en- ged in Interstate Commerce in cities. . ota eee