Construction and General Laborers Union, Local 185

9 Cited authorities

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
Electrical Workers v. Labor Board
366 U.S. 667 (1961) Cited 186 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union may picket a secondary employer only when the primary employer is at the job site
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
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.
Pacific Northwest Chapter, v. N.L.R.B
609 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1979) Cited 7 times
In Pacific Northwest, the court held that the construction industry proviso extends shelter "only when the employer or his subcontractor has employees who are members of the signatory union at work at some time at the jobsite at which the employer wishes to engage a nonunion subcontractor."
Local U. of Sheet Metal Wkrs. Int. v. Hardy
332 F.2d 682 (5th Cir. 1964) Cited 19 times
No. 20759. June 12, 1964. Rehearing Denied July 23, 1964. Jerome A. Cooper, Birmingham, Ala., Donald W. Fisher, Toledo, Ohio, Mulholland, Hickey Lyman, Toledo, Ohio, Cooper, Mitch Crawford, Birmingham, Ala., of counsel, for appellant. Louis Sherman, Washington, D.C., amicus curiae. M.L. Taliaferro, C.V. Stelzenmuller, Birmingham, Ala., Moore, Thomas, Taliaferro, Forman Burr, Birmingham, Ala., of counsel, for appellee. Before BELL, Circuit Judge, and INGRAHAM, District Judge. Judge CAMERON, the third
N.L.R.B. v. Muskegon Bricklayers Union No. 5
378 F.2d 859 (6th Cir. 1967) Cited 6 times
No. 16886. June 15, 1967. Gary Green, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Martin R. Ganzglass, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief, for petitioner. Jerry S. McCroskey, Muskegon, Mich., Marcus, McCroskey, Libner, Reamon, Williams Dilley, Darryl R. Cochrane, Muskegon, Mich., on brief, for respondent. Before EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE and PECK, Circuit Judges. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge. The National

Construction and General Laborers Union, Local 185

9 Cited authorities

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

Holding that a union may picket a secondary employer only when the primary employer is at the job site

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

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.

In Pacific Northwest, the court held that the construction industry proviso extends shelter "only when the employer or his subcontractor has employees who are members of the signatory union at work at some time at the jobsite at which the employer wishes to engage a nonunion subcontractor."