Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Local Union No. 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Jewel Tea Co., Inc., 1964 — 379 U.S. 813 · caselaw · US
General
Local Union No. 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Jewel Tea Co., Inc.
379 U.S. 813·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 240.
Local Union No. 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Jewel Tea Co., Inc.
Lester Asher, Bernard Dunau
and Robert C. Eardley for petitioners. George B. Christensen, Fred H. Daugherty and Theodore A. Groenke for respondent. Solicitor General Cox for the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition. J. Albert Woll, Robert C, Mayer, Theodore J. St. Antoine and Thomas E. Harris for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows:
“1. Based on the District Court’s undisturbed finding that the limitation ‘was imposed after’ arm’s length bargaining, . . . and was fashioned exclusively by the unions to serve their own interests — how long and what hours members shall work, what work they shall do, and what pay they shall receive’ (R. 672), whether the limitation upon market operating hours and the controversy concerning it are within the labor exemption of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
“2. Whether a claimed violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act which falls within the regulatory scope of the National Labor Relations Act is within the exclusive primary jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.”
Mótion of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations for leave to .file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted.