Carpenters Local 623 (Atlantic Exposition Services)

11 Cited authorities

Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
456 U.S. 645 (1982) Cited 269 times
Holding that "the Court of Appeals lack[ed] jurisdiction to review objections that were not urged before the Board"
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
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Enterprise Ass'n of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine & General Pipefitters
429 U.S. 507 (1977) Cited 138 times
Stating that if a union were to attempt to capture work it had previously acquiesced to non-union workers' performing, such conduct would serve "not to preserve, but to aggrandize, its own position and that of its members," concluding that "[s]uch activity is squarely within the statute" and thus prohibited
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
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n
447 U.S. 490 (1980) Cited 65 times 4 Legal Analyses
In NLRB v. Longshoremen, 447 U.S. 490 (1980) (ILA I), we reviewed the National Labor Relations Board's conclusion that the Rules and their enforcement constituted unlawful secondary activity under §§ 8(b)(4)(B) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4) (B) and 158(e).
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n
473 U.S. 61 (1985) Cited 53 times
Explaining that collective bargaining agreement cannot seek "to achieve union objectives outside the primary employer-employee relationship"
Pacific Northwest Chapter, Etc. v. N.L.R.B
654 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1981) Cited 14 times
In Pacific Northwest, where it was undisputed that the workers were engaged in on-site work, the court recognized that "the construction industry proviso narrowed the geographical scope of the [rule allowing secondary tactics] by introducing the job-site limitation."
Acco Constr. Equipment, Inc. v. Natl. Labor Relations Board
511 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1975) Cited 16 times
In Acco Construction Equipment, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 511 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1975), on-site repair of heavy construction equipment was held to be outside the exemption and, consequently, attempts to organize the mechanics were prohibited secondary activities.
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,092 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 Local 623 (Atlantic Exposition Services)

11 Cited authorities

Holding that "the Court of Appeals lack[ed] jurisdiction to review objections that were not urged before the Board"

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

Explaining that collective bargaining agreement cannot seek "to achieve union objectives outside the primary employer-employee relationship"

In Pacific Northwest, where it was undisputed that the workers were engaged in on-site work, the court recognized that "the construction industry proviso narrowed the geographical scope of the [rule allowing secondary tactics] by introducing the job-site limitation."

In Acco Construction Equipment, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 511 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1975), on-site repair of heavy construction equipment was held to be outside the exemption and, consequently, attempts to organize the mechanics were prohibited secondary activities.

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"