Carpenters' District Council of Detroit, Etc.

14 Cited authorities

United States v. Carter
353 U.S. 210 (1957) Cited 311 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding Miller Act "makes the surety liable on its payment bond" for defaulting contractor's obligations, including attorney's fees, under labor agreement
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."
MacEvoy Co. v. United States
322 U.S. 102 (1944) Cited 391 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he Miller Act is . . . highly remedial in nature. It is entitled to a liberal construction and application in order properly to effectuate the Congressional intent to protect those whose labor and materials go into public projects'"
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"
Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Rel. Board
170 F.2d 247 (7th Cir. 1949) Cited 156 times 2 Legal Analyses
Accepting the Board's conclusion "that the term `wages' . . . must be construed to include emoluments of value, like pension and insurance benefits, which may accrue to employees out of their employment relationship"
W.W. Cross Co. v. National Labor Rel. Board
174 F.2d 875 (1st Cir. 1949) Cited 52 times
Holding that " 'wages' " in the NLRA "embraces within its meaning direct and immediate economic benefits flowing from the employment relationship covers a group insurance program"
N.L.R.B. v. Davison
318 F.2d 550 (4th Cir. 1963) Cited 16 times
No. 8759. Argued January 11, 1963. Decided May 28, 1963. Melvin J. Welles, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board (Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Lee M. Modjeska, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, on brief), for petitioner. William B. Devaney, Washington, D.C. (Charles G. Williamson, Jr., and Steptoe Johnson, Washington, D.C., on brief), for respondent. Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and BRYAN
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
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
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
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,091 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"

Carpenters' District Council of Detroit, Etc.

14 Cited authorities

Holding Miller Act "makes the surety liable on its payment bond" for defaulting contractor's obligations, including attorney's fees, under labor agreement

Holding that "[t]he Miller Act is . . . highly remedial in nature. It is entitled to a liberal construction and application in order properly to effectuate the Congressional intent to protect those whose labor and materials go into public projects'"

Holding the degree of discretion in a CBA "is an issue for determination across the bargaining table, not by the Board"

Accepting the Board's conclusion "that the term `wages' . . . must be construed to include emoluments of value, like pension and insurance benefits, which may accrue to employees out of their employment relationship"

Holding that " 'wages' " in the NLRA "embraces within its meaning direct and immediate economic benefits flowing from the employment relationship covers a group insurance program"

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"