19 Cited authorities
Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 470 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
Labor Board v. Denver Bldg. Council
341 U.S. 675 (1951) Cited 494 times 1 Legal AnalysesAffirming 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
341 U.S. 694 (1951) Cited 246 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that the prohibition of picketing in furtherance of unlawful objectives is not an abridgement of free speech
Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.
309 U.S. 350 (1940) Cited 315 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA
Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co.
365 U.S. 695 (1961) Cited 22 timesIn NLRB v. News Syndicate Co., 365 U.S. 695, 81 S.Ct. 849, 6 L.Ed.2d 29 (1961), where the bargaining unit included supervisors, the NLRB had found that both the employer and the union had committed unfair labor practices by operating an unlawful closed shop and preferential hiring system.
Typographical Union v. Labor Board
365 U.S. 705 (1961) Cited 19 timesCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. No. 340. Argued March 1, 1961. Decided April 17, 1961. In collective bargaining negotiations, two unions demanded that the agreement require the employers to comply with union rules "not in conflict with" federal law and that foremen must be union members and do the hiring, but that they should be responsible only to the employers. Union insistence upon these demands led to a deadlock in the negotiations and a strike. The employers
National Labor Rel. Board v. Gaynor News Co.
197 F.2d 719 (2d Cir. 1952) Cited 45 timesIn Gaynor it was conceded that the sole criterion for extra payments was union membership, and the vacation payments were admittedly gratuitous.
District No. 9 v. N.L.R.B
315 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1962) Cited 24 timesNo. 16901. Argued September 27, 1962. Decided November 15, 1962. Mr. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Plato E. Papps, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Melvin J. Welles, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations
Los Angeles Mailers Union No. 9, v. N.L.R.B
311 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1962) Cited 16 timesNo. 16887. Argued September 27, 1962. Decided October 25, 1962. Rehearing Denied December 6, 1962. Mr. George Kaufmann, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Gerhard P. Van Arkel, Washington, D.C., and Stephen Reinhardt, Los Angeles, Cal., were on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Hans J. Lehmann, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations
Lewis v. Quality Coal Corporation
270 F.2d 140 (7th Cir. 1959) Cited 19 timesFinding the phrase "to the extent and in the manner permitted by law" required "conformity to existing or future law"