13 Cited authorities
Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 470 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal AnalysesFinding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.
312 U.S. 426 (1941) Cited 506 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"
Labor Board v. Mackay Co.
304 U.S. 333 (1938) Cited 535 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices
Teamsters Union v. Oliver
358 U.S. 283 (1959) Cited 166 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn Teamsters v. Oliver, 358 U.S. 283 (1959), we held that a state antitrust law could not be used to challenge an employer-union agreement. Justice White's opinion in Jewel Tea explains, however, that Oliver held only that "[a]s the agreement did not embody a `"remote and indirect approach to the subject of wages'... but a direct frontal attack upon a problem thought to threaten the maintenance of the basic wage structure established by the collective bargaining contract,' [358 U.S.], at 294, the paramount federal policy of encouraging collective bargaining proscribed application of the state law.
Labor Board v. Crompton Mills
337 U.S. 217 (1949) Cited 102 timesHolding unlawful unilateral changes significantly different from "any which the employer has proposed" during bargaining
Teamsters Union v. Oliver
362 U.S. 605 (1960) Cited 11 timesON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. No. 813. Decided May 16, 1960. Ohio's antitrust law may not be applied to prevent the contracting parties from carrying out a collective bargaining agreement upon a subject matter as to which the National Labor Relations Act directs them to bargain. Teamsters Union v. Oliver, 358 U.S. 283. Therefore, certiorari is granted and the judgment below is reversed. Pp. 605-606. 170 Ohio St. 207, 163 N.E.2d 383, reversed. David Previant, Robert
Piasecki Aircraft Corporation v. N.L.R.B
280 F.2d 575 (3d Cir. 1960) Cited 31 timesNos. 12912, 12995. Argued February 1, 1960. Decided June 20, 1960. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing in No. 12912, August 26, 1960. Francis E. Marshall, Philadelphia, Pa. (James J. Davis, Davis, Marshall Crumlish, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for petitioner Piasecki Aircraft Corp. Lowell Goerlich, Washington, D.C. (Ernest S. Wilson, Jr., Wilmington, Del., on the brief), for petitioners UAW-AFL-CIO and its Local 840. Allison W. Brown Jr., Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Thomas
Timken Roller Bearing v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.
161 F.2d 949 (6th Cir. 1947) Cited 31 timesIn Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 6 Cir., 161 F.2d 949, relied upon by plaintiff, arbitrability of the question of contracting out work was recognized as an interpretation of a management function clause of the agreement there involved.
Editorial "El Imparcial," Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
278 F.2d 184 (1st Cir. 1960) Cited 13 timesNo. 5568. Heard February 2, 1960. Decided May 3, 1960. George L. Weasler, Santurce, P.R., with whom Fiddler, Gonzalez, Guillemard Rodriguez, San Juan, P.R., was on the brief, for petitioners. Fannie M. Boyls, Attorney, with whom Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Assistant General Counsel, and William J. Avrutis, Attorney, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondent. Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit