ยง

Arlington Asphalt Co.

136 N.L.R.B. 742 (N.L.R.B. 1962)
Arlington Asphalt Co.

9 Cited authorities

  1. 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 ยง 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."

  2. Labor Board v. American Ins. Co.

    343 U.S. 395 (1952)   Cited 269 times
    Holding the degree of discretion in a CBA "is an issue for determination across the bargaining table, not by the Board"

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Rapid Bindery, Inc.

    293 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1961)   Cited 48 times
    In NLRB v. Rapid Bindery Inc., 293 F.2d at 176, the Second Circuit held that "conjecture or rumor is not an adequate substitute for an employer's formal notice to a union of a vital change in working conditions.

  4. National Labor R.B. v. Wooster Div., Borg-W

    236 F.2d 898 (6th Cir. 1956)   Cited 24 times

    Nos. 12687, 12730. September 12, 1956. Owsley Vose, Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, David P. Findling, Marcel Mallet-Prevost and Irving M. Herman, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for N.L.R.B. James C. Davis, Cleveland, Ohio, for Wooster Division, of Borg-Warner Corp. Lowell Goerlich, Washington, D.C. (Harold Cranefield, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for International Union, etc. Before MARTIN, MILLER and STEWART, Circuit Judges. MILLER, Circuit Judge. These cases are before the

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Cosco Products Company

    280 F.2d 905 (5th Cir. 1960)   Cited 13 times

    No. 18117. June 30, 1960. Petition for Modification of Opinion Denied September 13, 1960. James C. Paras, Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Melvin J. Welles, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Theo. Hamilton, Hamilton Bowden, Jacksonville, Fla., for respondent. Before HUTCHESON, JONES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges. HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge

  6. Local 164, Bhd. of Painters v. N.L.R.B

    293 F.2d 133 (D.C. Cir. 1961)   Cited 9 times

    No. 15643. Argued December 2, 1960. Decided April 27, 1961. Certiorari Denied October 9, 1961. See 82 S.Ct. 42. Mr. James F. Carroll, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioners. Mr. Frederick U. Reel, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and James C. Paras, Atty., N.L.R.B., were on the brief, for respondent. Before WILBUR

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Taormina

    207 F.2d 251 (5th Cir. 1953)   Cited 16 times

    No. 14362. September 17, 1953. Ruth V. Reel, Atty., David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, Elizabeth W. Weston, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Scott Toothaker, McAllen, Tex., Ewers, Cox Toothaker, McAllen, Tex., of counsel, for respondents. Before HOLMES, BORAH, and RIVES, Circuit Judges. BORAH, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order of May 29, 1951, requiring respondents

  8. National Labor Rel. Board v. Dalton Tel. Co.

    187 F.2d 811 (5th Cir. 1951)   Cited 14 times
    In Dalton Telephone, however, the court strongly suggested that the company's insistence on the union registration was simply a ploy to avoid reducing to writing an agreement to which the parties had already agreed.

  9. Morton v. Local 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs

    200 F. Supp. 653 (N.D. Ohio 1961)   Cited 3 times

    Civ. No. 8222. December 26, 1961. Flynn, Py Kruse, M.J. Stauffer, Sandusky, Ohio, for plaintiff. Goldberg, Previant Uelmen, Hugh Hafer, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant. KLOEB, District Judge. Under date of December 16, 1960, plaintiff filed his second amended complaint in which he alleges, in effect, the following: That this action arises under the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C.A. ยง 141 et seq.; that complainant is engaged in the trucking business as a sole proprietor