Mulhall Oral Argument

Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Unite Here v. Mulhall, which addresses whether neutrality and card-check agreements, among others, run afoul of Section 302.  I haven't had a chance to review the argument transcript, but based on reports of the argument, it seems to be falling along the expected lines.  As usual, Justice Kennedy appears to represent the swing vote and his statement that Mulhall's argument "is contrary to years of settled practices and understandings" should give unions some hope.  That said, many of the Justices seemed disturbed by part of the deal in which the union said it would contribute $100,000 to promote a referendum that the employer supported.  This echoes my previous concern about this case and why the union would seek cert.  Although the Court may not hold all neutrality and similar agreements to fall under Section 302, they might well hold that other exchanges--particularly ones involving significant expenditures--do.  Jack Goldsmith makes a similar point in his post at On Labor.

Finally, the standing issue (resulting from, among other things, the fact that the case is in a right-to-work state) was clearly on the mind of some Justices.  Thomas Frampton (a recent Berkeley grad) may score himself a Supreme Court cite with his recent essay arguing this standing point.

 

Hat Tip: Patrick Kavangh & James Young (whose colleague at NRTWLDF argued on behalf of Mulhall)

-JH