Adams Dairy Co.

20 Cited authorities

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,675 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
Steelworkers v. Warrior Gulf Co.
363 U.S. 574 (1960) Cited 5,612 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that grievance machinery “is at the very heart of the system of industrial self-government” and the courts should not deny an order to arbitrate “unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute”
Steelworkers v. Enterprise Corp.
363 U.S. 593 (1960) Cited 3,893 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a reviewing court should not refuse to enforce an arbitral award merely because it would read the collective bargaining agreement differently than the arbitrator
Steelworkers v. Am. Mfg. Co.
363 U.S. 564 (1960) Cited 2,229 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that because the parties bargained for the “arbitrator's judgment,” the underlying “question of contract interpretation” is for the arbitrator, and the courts have “no business weighing the merits of the grievance”
Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills
353 U.S. 448 (1957) Cited 2,323 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 301 expresses a federal policy in favor of the enforceability of labor contracts
Smith v. Evening News Assn
371 U.S. 195 (1962) Cited 815 times
Holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union
Carey v. Westinghouse Corp.
375 U.S. 261 (1964) Cited 365 times
Holding that Section 301 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a suit to enforce an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement even if the case is "truly a representation case" that could also be heard by the NLRB under Section 9 of the NLRA
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
Labor Board v. Seven-Up Co.
344 U.S. 344 (1953) Cited 368 times
Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding
Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Rel. Board
170 F.2d 247 (7th Cir. 1949) Cited 156 times 2 Legal Analyses
Accepting the Board's conclusion "that the term `wages' . . . must be construed to include emoluments of value, like pension and insurance benefits, which may accrue to employees out of their employment relationship"

Adams Dairy Co.

20 Cited authorities

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

Holding that a reviewing court should not refuse to enforce an arbitral award merely because it would read the collective bargaining agreement differently than the arbitrator

Holding that because the parties bargained for the “arbitrator's judgment,” the underlying “question of contract interpretation” is for the arbitrator, and the courts have “no business weighing the merits of the grievance”

Holding that § 301 expresses a federal policy in favor of the enforceability of labor contracts

Holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union

Holding that Section 301 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a suit to enforce an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement even if the case is "truly a representation case" that could also be heard by the NLRB under Section 9 of the NLRA

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding

Accepting the Board's conclusion "that the term `wages' . . . must be construed to include emoluments of value, like pension and insurance benefits, which may accrue to employees out of their employment relationship"