This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is engaged in the business of transportation services and Teamsters (D) is the exclusive collective bargaining representative of certain employees of P. P authorized and began a strike. The strike resulted from the parties' failure to agree upon terms for a new collective bargaining agreement. D filed an action seeking injunctive relief under Minn. Stat. § 179 (1990) and a declaratory judgment as to whether Minnesota's Striker Replacement Act, Minn. Stat. § 179.12(9) (1991), was preempted by federal labor law. The legislature enacted the law to address concerns about violence and misconduct and to ensure that strikes were peaceful. P moved for summary judgment, arguing that Minn. Stat. § 179.12(9) is preempted by federal labor law. Ds asserted that the law was necessary to restore the collective-bargaining balance between employers and employees and bring stability to labor relations.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.