Dino and Sons Realty Corp.

28 Cited authorities

Longshoremen v. Davis
476 U.S. 380 (1986) Cited 322 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that where "a state court . . . ha no subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue . . ., any judgment issued by the state court will be void ab initio"
Belknap, Inc. v. Hale
463 U.S. 491 (1983) Cited 278 times
Holding that the NLRA does not preempt state law contract actions by replacement workers to enforce terms of an employment contract
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.
388 U.S. 26 (1967) Cited 323 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.
389 U.S. 375 (1967) Cited 234 times
In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.
Labor Board v. Mackay Co.
304 U.S. 333 (1938) Cited 535 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices
SCM Corp. v. Advance Business Systems & Supply Co.
397 U.S. 920 (1970) Cited 200 times 5 Legal Analyses
Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America
511 U.S. 571 (1994) Cited 97 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the Board's test is inconsistent with both the statutory language and th[e] Court's precedents"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Van Lines
409 U.S. 48 (1972) Cited 71 times
Holding that a statement that striking employees "are being permanently replaced" constituted an unlawful discharge when permanent replacements had not been hired
N.L.R.B. v. Augusta Bakery Corp.
957 F.2d 1467 (7th Cir. 1992) Cited 45 times
Holding that the replacements were temporary because, although the replacements were told that "if they worked out and did their job, they had a job," the testimony of the replacements indicated that they did not understand themselves to be permanent employees
Laidlaw Corporation v. N.L.R.B
414 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1969) Cited 81 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list

Dino and Sons Realty Corp.

28 Cited authorities

Holding that where "a state court . . . ha no subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue . . ., any judgment issued by the state court will be void ab initio"

Holding that the NLRA does not preempt state law contract actions by replacement workers to enforce terms of an employment contract

Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.

Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices

Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances

Holding that "the Board's test is inconsistent with both the statutory language and th[e] Court's precedents"

Holding that a statement that striking employees "are being permanently replaced" constituted an unlawful discharge when permanent replacements had not been hired

Holding that the replacements were temporary because, although the replacements were told that "if they worked out and did their job, they had a job," the testimony of the replacements indicated that they did not understand themselves to be permanent employees

Holding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list