ยง

Bricklayers & Masons' Union Local No. 2, Etc.

152 N.L.R.B. 1582 (N.L.R.B. 1965)
Bricklayers & Masons' Union Local No. 2, Etc.

4 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. United Steelworkers v. Am. Internat'l Aluminum

    334 F.2d 147 (5th Cir. 1964)   Cited 47 times

    No. 21406. July 9, 1964. Rehearing Denied August 19, 1964. Nathan Lipson, Pittsburgh, Pa., Neal P. Rutledge, Miami, Fla., David E. Feller, Elliot Bredhoff, Jerry D. Anker, Michael H. Gottesman, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Herbert B. Mintz, R.M. MacArthur, Miami, Fla., for appellee. Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, BROWN, Circuit Judge, and BREWSTER, District Judge. JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge. The question here is whether the District Court properly dismissed the complaint brought by the Union under

  3. 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

  4. 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.