The dissenting judges agreed that non-payment of salaries could constitute a violation of the various recruitment contracts as the basis for employees` common law actions. They considered the offence, if at all, to be a breach of collective agreements and, as such, perceptible before the Federal Court under Article 301. They concluded that Rule 17(a) allowed the union to sue alone and without the membership of the workers in order to defend the rights of these workers as a class, as these workers were beneficiaries of collective agreements. However, they agreed with the Amtsgericht that the negotiation contracts did not render the defendants liable in that reprimand, since the cause of the absence of work had not been invoked. 210 F.2d, at 630. At the first meeting of the 80th Congresses contained the bills tabled in the two houses independently of the other, which were remarkably similar to the final version of Article 10 of the Cases Act. The discussion was more analytical. While the general benefits reappear in the praise of reciprocity and applicability, it was obvious that the specific wish was to remove procedural barriers to taking legal action on the part of and against the union. Senator Pepper and Labor Minister Schwellenbach saw the measure as a “federal forum” for appeals on contracts based on local law. It was assumed that this would lead to mutual applicability, which in turn would promote the harmony of work. The statement by Minister Schwellenbach (who, together with the trade unions, opposed Article 301), reports on minorities in both houses and statements of opposition on Senate soil drew attention to the fact that state law would govern action under Article 301 and that this would raise, in addition to the jurisdiction of diversity, an essential constitutional issue. The first of these assertions is not denied.
Senator Taft did not justify section 301 as dependent on federal substantive law on the interpretation of collective agreements: 1. In dealing with a decree such as section 301 of the Labour Relations Act, it is appropriate to first examine its area of jurisdiction, particularly whether it extends to the present remedy. As is not uncommon, this is, to a large extent, a question of what sources a federal court should use to determine the underlying material rights of the parties – in this case, to decide whether the union has the right to the contracts it invokes. .