NCJ Number
97044
Journal
Notre Dame Law Review Volume: 69 Issue: 3 Dated: (1984) Pages: 817-839
Date Published
1984
Length
23 pages
Annotation
This article discusses the legal challenge to Atlantic City's Casino Control Act, which requires registration of unions seeking to represent casino employees and prohibits dues collection by any union whose leaders are disqualified under the act and argues that the act does not unconstitutionally interfere with Federal labor legislation.
Abstract
Congress' enactment of section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is reviewed, and relevant current Supreme Court decisions are discussed. Any challenged State regulation which appears to conflict with section 7 of the NLRA triggers a balancing test: to determine if the State regulation can coexist with section 7, a court must weigh the special State interest against the harm to the Federal regulatory scheme. In Hotel and Restaurant Employees International Union Local 54 v. Danziger, the Court fashioned a preemption doctrine that appears to leave no room for State regulation of qualification for union officials; the Danziger majority erred by not using the balancing test at all. The balancing must begin with New Jersey's interest in maintaining a comprehensive regulatory scheme to govern casino gambling. To maintain the integrity of the casino industry, the Casino Control Act was passed; sections 86 and 93 of this act restrict an employee's unfettered choice of a bargaining representative, but do not, as the Danziger majority concludes, constitute an impermissible intrusion into federally created or protected rights under section 7. Finally, the application of the balancing test must include an analysis of the impact the State regulation has on the Federal regulatory scheme; although the Casino Control Act poses potential problems in both areas, the resulting harm to the Federal scheme is insignificant. Included is a list of 145 references.