Carpenters Local 944

14 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bell Aerospace Co.
416 U.S. 267 (1974) Cited 759 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that an agency is "not precluded from announcing new principles in an adjudicative proceeding"
National Woodwork Manufacturers Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
386 U.S. 612 (1967) Cited 392 times
Holding that union employees' refusal to install third-party manufacturer's product was not prohibited under § 158(b)(B), because it was an action "pressuring the [union members'] employer for agreements regulating relations between [the employer] and his own employees"
Connell Co. v. Plumbers Steamfitters
421 U.S. 616 (1975) Cited 285 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an agreement between a union and a nonlabor party, which is wholly-unrelated to any collective-bargaining effort on the part of the union and which operates or threatens to operate as a restraint on trade, may be the basis for a federal antitrust suit
Labor Board v. Denver Bldg. Council
341 U.S. 675 (1951) Cited 494 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming Board's assertion of jurisdiction over activities taking place at local construction site based on finding that "any widespread application of the practices charged might well result in substantially decreasing" the flow of interstate commerce
Carpenters' Union v. Labor Board
357 U.S. 93 (1958) Cited 201 times
Rejecting Government position that we should defer to the Board's interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act
Florida Power Light v. Electrical Workers
417 U.S. 790 (1974) Cited 96 times
In Florida Power Light Co. v. IBEW, Local 641, 417 U.S. 790, 804-05, 94 S.Ct. 2737, 2744-45, 41 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974), the Supreme Court held that no § 8(b)(1)(B) violation occurs unless the disciplined conduct adversely affects the performance of his or her § 8(b)(1)(B) duties.
Orange Belt Dist. Coun. of Ptrs. v. N.L.R.B
328 F.2d 534 (D.C. Cir. 1964) Cited 56 times
No. 17388. Argued November 6, 1963. Decided January 30, 1964. Mr. Herbert M. Ansell, Washington, D.C., of the bar of the Supreme Court of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, for petitioners. Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for petitioners. Mr. David Barr, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for petitioners. Mr. Hans J. Lehmann, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board
N.L.R.B. v. Int'l Bro. of Elec. Wkrs
405 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. 1968) Cited 25 times
In NLRB v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 405 F.2d at 162, this court held that only that part of a contract that exceeds the limits of the construction industry provision is negated.
Essex Cty. Dist. Coun. Carpenters v. N.L.R.B
332 F.2d 636 (3d Cir. 1964) Cited 23 times
No. 14436. Argued November 8, 1963. Decided April 30, 1964. Robert D. Corbin, Newark, N.J. (Joseph P. Dunn, Newark, N.J., on the brief), for petitioner. Melvin J. Welles, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Janet Kohn, Attorney, N.L.R.B., on the brief), for respondent. Louis Sherman, Laurence J. Cohen, Washington, D.C. (Sherman, Dunn Sickles, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for Building
Construction, Prod. Lab. U. v. N.L.R.B
323 F.2d 422 (9th Cir. 1963) Cited 21 times
Noting that the Supreme Court recognizes a "definite" distinction between an agreement to cease doing business and the cessation itself

Carpenters Local 944

14 Cited authorities

Holding that an agency is "not precluded from announcing new principles in an adjudicative proceeding"

Holding that union employees' refusal to install third-party manufacturer's product was not prohibited under § 158(b)(B), because it was an action "pressuring the [union members'] employer for agreements regulating relations between [the employer] and his own employees"

Holding that an agreement between a union and a nonlabor party, which is wholly-unrelated to any collective-bargaining effort on the part of the union and which operates or threatens to operate as a restraint on trade, may be the basis for a federal antitrust suit

Affirming Board's assertion of jurisdiction over activities taking place at local construction site based on finding that "any widespread application of the practices charged might well result in substantially decreasing" the flow of interstate commerce

Rejecting Government position that we should defer to the Board's interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act

In Florida Power Light Co. v. IBEW, Local 641, 417 U.S. 790, 804-05, 94 S.Ct. 2737, 2744-45, 41 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974), the Supreme Court held that no § 8(b)(1)(B) violation occurs unless the disciplined conduct adversely affects the performance of his or her § 8(b)(1)(B) duties.

In NLRB v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 405 F.2d at 162, this court held that only that part of a contract that exceeds the limits of the construction industry provision is negated.

Noting that the Supreme Court recognizes a "definite" distinction between an agreement to cease doing business and the cessation itself