§

American Thoro-Clean, Ltd. And Unico, Ltd.

283 N.L.R.B. 1107 (N.L.R.B. 1987)
American Thoro-Clean, Ltd. And Unico, Ltd.

11 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local Union No. 103, International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers

    434 U.S. 335 (1978)   Cited 286 times
    Affirming a cease and desist order issued by the National Labor Relations Board to a striking, uncertified union, which the union alleged was inconsistent with a prior ruling of the agency

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. C & C Plywood Corp.

    385 U.S. 421 (1967)   Cited 117 times
    Holding that the NLRB has the authority to interpret CBAs in the first instance where its interpretation is for the purpose of “enforc[ing] a statutory right which Congress considered necessary to allow labor and management to get on with the process of reaching fair terms and conditions of employment”

  4. Contractor Utili. Sales v. Certain-Teed Prod

    638 F.2d 1061 (7th Cir. 1981)   Cited 65 times
    Rejecting a "put-in-writing" rule even where contract had an integration clause

  5. Terrell Machine Company v. N.L.R.B

    427 F.2d 1088 (4th Cir. 1970)   Cited 47 times

    No. 13371. Argued December 2, 1969. Decided January 20, 1970. William W. Sturges, Charlotte, N.C. (Weinstein, Waggoner, Sturges Odom, Charlotte, N.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Thomas E. Silfen, Atty., N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and John D. Burgoyne, Atty., N.L.R.B., on the brief), for respondent. Before SOBELOFF and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and HARVEY, District Judge. WINTER, Circuit Judge:

  6. Local No. 150, International Union of Operating Engineers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    480 F.2d 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1973)   Cited 29 times

    No. 71-1689. June 20, 1973. Bernard M. Baum, Daniel S. Shulman, Robert H. Baum, Chicago, Ill., and J. Albert Woll, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for petitioner. Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., at the time the brief was filed, Charles N. Steele, and Alan D. Cirker, Washington, D.C., Attys., N.L.R.B., were on the brief for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before McGOWAN, Circuit Judge, and WINTER

  7. Authorized Air Conditioning Co. v. N.L.R.B

    606 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1979)   Cited 21 times

    No. 78-2427. October 19, 1979. John W. Prager, Jr., Musick, Peeler Garrett, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Andrew F. Tranovich, Lawrence E. Blatnik, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before BARNES, BROWNING and ELY, Circuit Judges. Ely, Circuit Judge: Pursuant to Section 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act "(the Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 160(f), Authorized Air Conditioning

  8. Wis. River Val. Dist. Council, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    532 F.2d 47 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 11 times
    In Wisconsin River Valley Dist. Council v. NLRB, 532 F.2d 47 (1976), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also took a position seemingly at odds with the judgment under review here.

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Custom Sheet Metal Service Co.

    666 F.2d 454 (10th Cir. 1981)   Cited 5 times

    No. 80-1199. Argued and Submitted September 29, 1981. Decided December 14, 1981. R. Michael Smith, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Charles W. Ellis of Ellis Frates, Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondent. Before HOLLOWAY and DOYLE, Circuit Judges, and KUNZIG, Judge. Honorable

  10. Local Union No. 103, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    535 F.2d 87 (D.C. Cir. 1976)   Cited 5 times
    In Iron Workers the Supreme Court pointed out that one reason their interpretation of section 8(f) does not render that section meaningless is that section 8(f) is similar to section 8(e), and section 8(e) has been interpreted so that it, too, cannot be enforced by economic coercion.