Gary's Electrical Service

8 Cited authorities

Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd
461 U.S. 260 (1983) Cited 132 times
Holding that "[n]othing in the legislative history of § 8(f) indicates Congress intended employers to obtain free the benefits of stable labor costs, labor peace, and the use of the union hiring hall. Having had the music, he must pay the piper."
International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988) Cited 119 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding review of the Board's decision to apply a new rule of law retrospectively is deferential and that the Board's ruling will be disturbed only if it wreaks manifest injustice
New Mexico Dist. Council, Etc. v. Mayhew Co.
664 F.2d 215 (10th Cir. 1981) Cited 42 times
Relying on Contractors, Laborers, Teamsters Engineers Health Welfare Plan v. Associated Wrecking Co., 638 F.2d 1128, 1133-34 (8th Cir. 1981)
Cedar Valley Corp. v. N.L.R.B
977 F.2d 1211 (8th Cir. 1992) Cited 16 times
In Cedar Valley, we enforced the Board's order that an employer was bound by a subsequent § 8(f) pre-hire agreement in virtually identical circumstances.
Todd v. Jim McNeff, Inc.
667 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1982) Cited 28 times
In Jim McNeff we chose to cite Iron Workers, Local 103 (Higdon Construction Co.), 216 N.L.R.B. 45; 88 L.R.R.M. 1067 (1975) to illustrate what we meant when we said that "in some circumstances noncompliance can be so bald as to put the union on notice of the employer's intent to repudiate."
Washington Area Carpenters' v. Overhead Door Co.
681 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1982) Cited 23 times
No. 80-1501. Argued May 14, 1981. Decided June 15, 1982. Joseph Semo, Washington, D.C., with whom Ira M. Lechner, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellants. William T. Torgerson, Washington, D.C., with whom John J. Ross and Wendy T. Kirby, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee. Gerald M. Feder, Robert J. Connerton and Theodore T. Green, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for amicus curiae, Nat. Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, urging reversal. Laurence J. Cohen
United Broth. of Carpenters v. Endicott Enter
806 F.2d 918 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 17 times
In United Brotherhood of Carpenters Jointers v. Endicott Enterprises, 806 F.2d 918 (9th Cir. 1986), a union brought suit against an employer for breach of a pre-hire agreement.
MFP Fire Protection, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
101 F.3d 1341 (10th Cir. 1996) Cited 6 times
In MFP Fire Protection, the Court found that the series of agreements, together with the history of payments to the funds, barred the employer from later denying the Union's status as the employees' representative.

Gary's Electrical Service

8 Cited authorities

Holding that "[n]othing in the legislative history of § 8(f) indicates Congress intended employers to obtain free the benefits of stable labor costs, labor peace, and the use of the union hiring hall. Having had the music, he must pay the piper."

Holding review of the Board's decision to apply a new rule of law retrospectively is deferential and that the Board's ruling will be disturbed only if it wreaks manifest injustice

Relying on Contractors, Laborers, Teamsters Engineers Health Welfare Plan v. Associated Wrecking Co., 638 F.2d 1128, 1133-34 (8th Cir. 1981)

In Cedar Valley, we enforced the Board's order that an employer was bound by a subsequent § 8(f) pre-hire agreement in virtually identical circumstances.

In Jim McNeff we chose to cite Iron Workers, Local 103 (Higdon Construction Co.), 216 N.L.R.B. 45; 88 L.R.R.M. 1067 (1975) to illustrate what we meant when we said that "in some circumstances noncompliance can be so bald as to put the union on notice of the employer's intent to repudiate."

In United Brotherhood of Carpenters Jointers v. Endicott Enterprises, 806 F.2d 918 (9th Cir. 1986), a union brought suit against an employer for breach of a pre-hire agreement.

In MFP Fire Protection, the Court found that the series of agreements, together with the history of payments to the funds, barred the employer from later denying the Union's status as the employees' representative.