Austin & Wolfe Refrigeration

8 Cited authorities

Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman
345 U.S. 330 (1953) Cited 882 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union acting in its representative capacity owes a duty of fair representation to those on whose behalf it acts
American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board
380 U.S. 300 (1965) Cited 352 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.
388 U.S. 26 (1967) Cited 323 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp.
373 U.S. 221 (1963) Cited 359 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"
Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 471 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
Teamsters Local v. Labor Board
365 U.S. 667 (1961) Cited 174 times
Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria
Southern S.S. Co. v. Labor Board
316 U.S. 31 (1942) Cited 160 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding an abuse of discretion where the National Labor Relations Board sought to fulfill one congressional objective but “wholly ignore[d] other and equally important Congressional objectives”
N.L.R.B. v. Miranda Fuel Co., Inc.
326 F.2d 172 (2d Cir. 1963) Cited 98 times
No. 73, Docket 26232. Argued October 21, 1963. Decided December 11, 1963. Melvin J. Welles, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Herman M. Levy, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Samuel J. Cohen, New York City (Jack Last and Cohen Weiss, New York City, on the brief), for respondent Union. Ruth

Austin & Wolfe Refrigeration

8 Cited authorities

Holding that a union acting in its representative capacity owes a duty of fair representation to those on whose behalf it acts

Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful

Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria

Finding an abuse of discretion where the National Labor Relations Board sought to fulfill one congressional objective but “wholly ignore[d] other and equally important Congressional objectives”