Evening News Assn.

13 Cited authorities

Vaca v. Sipes
386 U.S. 171 (1967) Cited 4,209 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, under the LMRA, an "individual employee has absolute right to have his grievance taken to arbitration regardless of the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 265 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.
351 U.S. 149 (1956) Cited 223 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith
Curtiss-Wright, Wright Aero. Div. v. N.L.R.B
347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965) Cited 55 times
Noting the Board has "considerable leeway in amplifying or expanding certain details not specifically set forth in the complaint if they accord with the general substance of the complaint"
Press Democrat Pub. Co. v. N.L.R.B
629 F.2d 1320 (9th Cir. 1980) Cited 15 times
Nos. 79-7086 to 79-7089 and 79-7158 to 79-7161. Argued and Submitted July 10, 1980. Decided October 8, 1980. James E. Boddy, Jr., Irwin Leff, San Francisco, Cal., argued, for petitioners; James C. Paras, Irwin Leff, San Francisco, Cal., on brief. W. Christian Schumann, NLRB, Washington, D.C., argued, for respondent; Elliott Moore, Washington, D.C., on brief. Petitions for Review and Cross-Applications for Enforcement of Orders of National Labor Relations Board. Before WRIGHT, KENNEDY and POOLE, Circuit
N.L.R.B. v. Fitzgerald Mills Corporation
313 F.2d 260 (2d Cir. 1963) Cited 35 times
Nos. 31, 32, 33, Dockets 27422, 27224, 27318. Argued October 11, 1962. Decided January 9, 1963. Morton Nambow, Atty., N.L.R.B. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Allison W. Brown, Jr., Atty., N.L.R.B., on the brief), for National Labor Relations Board. Edward Wynne, New York City (Benjamin Wyle, New York City, on the brief), for Textile Workers Union. Theodore R. Iserman, New York City (Kelley Drye Newhall Maginnes
N.L.R.B. v. Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, Inc.
639 F.2d 1344 (5th Cir. 1981) Cited 7 times
Finding that unions often have a duty "to represent both union and non-union members . . . [and this duty] extends not only to the negotiations for an agreement, but also to the enforcement of the provisions of the agreement."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Yawman & Erbe Mfg. Co.
187 F.2d 947 (2d Cir. 1951) Cited 34 times
No. 107, Docket 21789. Argued February 7, 1951. Decided March 28, 1951. George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, Frederick U. Reel and Raymond M. Norton, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Nixon, Hargrave, Middleton Devans, Rochester, N.Y., for respondent; Arthur L. Stern and William H. Morris, Rochester, N Y, of counsel. Before L. HAND, Chief Judge, and SWAN and FRANK,
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Whitin Mach. Works
217 F.2d 593 (4th Cir. 1954) Cited 25 times
No. 6883. November 18, 1954. Decided December 8, 1954. Frederick U. Reel, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, and James A. Ryan, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. Whiteford S. Blakeney, Charlotte, N.C. (Pierce Blakeney, Charlotte, N.C., on brief), for respondent. Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This is a petition by the National Labor
J.I. Case Company v. National Labor Rel. Board
253 F.2d 149 (7th Cir. 1958) Cited 20 times
In J.I. Case we simply noted that a union has, absent a showing of relevance, no "`per se' right to information" it requests from an employer during the course of collective bargaining.

Evening News Assn.

13 Cited authorities

Holding that, under the LMRA, an "individual employee has absolute right to have his grievance taken to arbitration regardless of the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement"

Approving "discovery-type standard"

Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

Noting the Board has "considerable leeway in amplifying or expanding certain details not specifically set forth in the complaint if they accord with the general substance of the complaint"

Finding that unions often have a duty "to represent both union and non-union members . . . [and this duty] extends not only to the negotiations for an agreement, but also to the enforcement of the provisions of the agreement."

In J.I. Case we simply noted that a union has, absent a showing of relevance, no "`per se' right to information" it requests from an employer during the course of collective bargaining.