*1 City оf New York 74-524. Thistlethwaite No. v. Mr. Justice Certiorari denied. C. A. 2d Cir. et Douglas certiorari. grant would et minor, Gooden, al.
No. 74-580. v. Gooden, Mississippi University et al. C. A. 5th Douglas grant would Justice Certiorari denied. Mr. certiorari. Ayers Oregon. App.
No. 74-5016. Ct. Ore. Cеr- Douglas certi- grant tiorari denied. Mr. Justice would orari. Sup. 74-5074. Estrada Ct. Wis.
No. Wisconsin. Douglas would grant Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice certiorari. 74-5427. Werts
No. C. 5th United States. Douglas Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. would Justice grant certiorari.
No. 74-5506. A. 5th C. Cir. Cer- v. Cook. Carter Douglas denied. would grant tiorari cer- Justice Mr. tiorari. Buckley al. American Federa- Cir.;
tion of Television & Radio Artists. A. 2d v. Federatiоn Lewis N. Y. App. Ct. Certio- Television & Radio Artists. rari denied. Douglas, with whom The Chief Justice
joins, dissenting. them, present as I casеs, view the issue of whether
These
a person
infringement
suffers an
of his First Amend-
*2
rights
compelled
(or
ment
when he is
union dues
precondition
equivalent)
a
his ideas
expressing
public
a
through
broadcasting medium.1
Railway Employes’
Hanson,
Dept.
way Act, provided Labor that state “right work” superseded laws were a and that union-shop agreement permissible was notwithstanding S., laws. 351 U. at 231-232. Thus that placed federal Act imprimatur “the of the federal law” uрon union-shop agreements. The Taft-Hartley (in Act contrast) authorizes union-shop agreements only contrаry in the absence state law. 61 Stat. 29 151, (b). U. S. C. 164§ Yet there is a still sub- argument stantial favor of a holding that a union-shop agreement under the NLRA bears the imprimatur of federal law. fact (a) (3)2 §
The 8 is phrased in permissive mandatory rather than terms would not, itself, agree respective 1 I with the Appeals Courts of issues concern disciplinary (or sanctiоns) sanctions threats of such are not properly before us. 452, amended, (a)(3). 49 Stat. U. C. § The Federal
prevent finding gоvernmental action. regulation Government has undertaken extensive relations, approval field of its labor-management union-shop and enforcement of be said agreements, agreements. and foster such Linsсott “encourage” Co., Millers Falls 440 F. 2d Reitman v. (CA1 1971); cf. Mulkey, (1967). U. permissiveness
It significant congressional is coupled toward agreements is with the whereby “exclusivity” NLRA’s principle, majority vote employees particular categоry sufficient designate an bargaining representative exclusive whose *3 majority actions bind minority When Con- alike. аn gress employer authorizes and a union to enter into union-shop agreements and makes such agreements bind- and enforceable minority over the of a dissents of employees or union members, it has cast the of wеight the Federal Government behind the agreements just as surely if it had them statute.
There a substantial question whether the uniоn-dues requirement imposed upon petitioners these should be a prior characterized as or upon restraint inhibition free-speech rights. some requirement respects, pay compulsion to under dues can be viewed as the func equivalent tional of a “license” speak. several decisions, related we have left open freedoms, First Amendment assoeiational would be in fringed subject a union member to a pay agreement dues to'support union political activities with which disagrees. he Machinists Street, 740 (1961); Railway U. S. Employes’ Dept supra. Lathrop Donohue, Cf. U. S. . (1961) We held in Street that the Railway Labor Act deny should be construed to unions the to compel a union support member to of political causes of which disapproves; he we indicated that some out, could be worked apportionment formula suitable bear his share union member would sо that he activities from collective-bargaining cost of be to contribute but would forced benefited, not to do Whether he did wish so. political activities if not be out a similar accommodation could worked deаling I know. with present case, do not Our cases requirements, registration flat license fees or Collins, Murdock v. Thomаs v. U. S. (1945), tend Pennsylvania, suggest 319 U. solely cover admin designed payment
even a minimal impermissible costs be First Amend istrative аn question ment context. There remains whether dues could worked out respecting accommodation I рresent outcome, Whatever the believe that case. plenary are sufficiently the issues substantial cаll consideration. Corp. Industries, 74-498. Research v. Nasco denied. C. A. 7th Certiorari
Inc. part took no in the consideration decision Blackmun petition. this Wyeth a Division Laboratories, Corp. Reyes. 5thA. Home Products *4 Academy Motions of American of Pediatrics and Conference of for Epidemiologists Territorial leave file amiсi granted. briefs as curiae Motion Assn, American Medical for leave to file brief as amicus curiae denied. Certiorari denied. Judge U. Ditter, District Phila
delphia 3d Cir. Mo- Inc., Newspapers, Assn, tion Newspaper of American Publishers leave brief amicus curiae and certiorari denied. file