Antelope Valley Press

10 Cited authorities

Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board
379 U.S. 203 (1964) Cited 734 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA
Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.
356 U.S. 342 (1958) Cited 296 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."
Douds v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n
241 F.2d 278 (2d Cir. 1957) Cited 64 times
In Douds v. International Longshoremen's Association, 241 F.2d 278 (2d Cir. 1957), we upheld the district court's granting of a preliminary injunction sought by the Board against a union.
The Idaho Statesman v. N.L.R.B
836 F.2d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1988) Cited 17 times
Stating that § 8 protects mandatory, but not permissive, subjects of bargaining
Hill-Rom Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
957 F.2d 454 (7th Cir. 1992) Cited 12 times
Nos. 89-3721, 90-1236. Argued November 2, 1990. Decided March 6, 1992. William R. Stewart, N.L.R.B., Contempt Litigation Branch, Aileen A. Armstrong, Robert I. Tendrich (argued), N.L.R.B., Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, D.C. William T. Little, James S. Robles, N.L.R.B., Region 25, Indianapolis, Ind., for N.L.R.B. Kenneth J. Yerkes, Robert K. Bellamy (argued), Barnes Thornburg, Indianapolis, Ind., for Hill-Rom Co., Inc. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board
Newspaper Printing Corp. v. N.L.R.B
625 F.2d 956 (10th Cir. 1980) Cited 24 times
Stating that "it is the Board's duty to make the final determination as to whether an unfair labor practice has occurred" and that "insistence to impasse upon a non-mandatory subject of bargaining violates § 8"
N.L.R.B. v. Columbia Tribune Publishing Co.
495 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir. 1974) Cited 26 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Columbia Tribune Publishing Co., 495 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir. 1974), the newspaper had changed from hot metal to cold photo composition.
Newspaper Printing Corp. v. N.L.R.B
692 F.2d 615 (6th Cir. 1982) Cited 15 times
In Newspaper Printing, the employer did not merely reserve the right to assign work to another union, but also reserved the right unilaterally to determine what jobs were in the bargaining unit.
Hess Oil Chemical Corporation v. N.L.R.B
415 F.2d 440 (5th Cir. 1969) Cited 22 times
Holding "an issue concerning the construction of an appropriate unit so as to exclude certain members from that unit is not a subject for bargaining and an insistence upon it constitutes a violation" of the NLRA
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,106 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

Antelope Valley Press

10 Cited authorities

Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

In Douds v. International Longshoremen's Association, 241 F.2d 278 (2d Cir. 1957), we upheld the district court's granting of a preliminary injunction sought by the Board against a union.

Stating that § 8 protects mandatory, but not permissive, subjects of bargaining

Stating that "it is the Board's duty to make the final determination as to whether an unfair labor practice has occurred" and that "insistence to impasse upon a non-mandatory subject of bargaining violates § 8"

In N.L.R.B. v. Columbia Tribune Publishing Co., 495 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir. 1974), the newspaper had changed from hot metal to cold photo composition.

In Newspaper Printing, the employer did not merely reserve the right to assign work to another union, but also reserved the right unilaterally to determine what jobs were in the bargaining unit.

Holding "an issue concerning the construction of an appropriate unit so as to exclude certain members from that unit is not a subject for bargaining and an insistence upon it constitutes a violation" of the NLRA

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"