General Motors Corp.

9 Cited authorities

Steele v. L. N.R. Co.
323 U.S. 192 (1944) Cited 959 times
Holding that a labor organization must represent all members of a "craft or class of employees . . . regardless of their union affiliations or want of them"
Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 470 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
Labor Board v. American Ins. Co.
343 U.S. 395 (1952) Cited 269 times
Holding the degree of discretion in a CBA "is an issue for determination across the bargaining table, not by the Board"
Tunstall v. Brotherhood
323 U.S. 210 (1944) Cited 286 times
In Tunstall v. Brotherhood, 323 U.S. 210, the federal right was derived from the federal duty of the union to act as bargaining representative for all members of the union.
Algoma Plywood Co. v. Wis. Board
336 U.S. 301 (1949) Cited 114 times
In Algoma P. V. Co. v. Wisconsin Empl. Rel. Bd., 336 U.S. 301, it was held that nothing in the Act precludes a state from prohibiting closed-shop contracts in whole or in part.
Union Starch Ref. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.
186 F.2d 1008 (7th Cir. 1951) Cited 51 times
In Union Starch, the employees had tendered dues and an initiation fee but were denied membership in the union for refusal to file union application forms, attend a union meeting or take the union oath.
Higgins v. Cardinal Manufacturing Co.
188 Kan. 11 (Kan. 1961) Cited 34 times
Holding that deduction of sum equal to union dues violates state constitutional amendment prohibiting employer from conditioning employment on union membership
National Labor Rel. Board v. Gaynor News Co.
197 F.2d 719 (2d Cir. 1952) Cited 45 times
In Gaynor it was conceded that the sole criterion for extra payments was union membership, and the vacation payments were admittedly gratuitous.
Meade Electric Co. v. Hagberg
129 Ind. App. 631 (Ind. Ct. App. 1959) Cited 33 times
In Meade, the company contended that since there was no difference between the payment of dues and actual membership in a labor organization, the agency-shop provision was unlawful.

General Motors Corp.

9 Cited authorities

Holding that a labor organization must represent all members of a "craft or class of employees . . . regardless of their union affiliations or want of them"

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

Holding the degree of discretion in a CBA "is an issue for determination across the bargaining table, not by the Board"

In Tunstall v. Brotherhood, 323 U.S. 210, the federal right was derived from the federal duty of the union to act as bargaining representative for all members of the union.

In Algoma P. V. Co. v. Wisconsin Empl. Rel. Bd., 336 U.S. 301, it was held that nothing in the Act precludes a state from prohibiting closed-shop contracts in whole or in part.

In Union Starch, the employees had tendered dues and an initiation fee but were denied membership in the union for refusal to file union application forms, attend a union meeting or take the union oath.

Holding that deduction of sum equal to union dues violates state constitutional amendment prohibiting employer from conditioning employment on union membership

In Gaynor it was conceded that the sole criterion for extra payments was union membership, and the vacation payments were admittedly gratuitous.

In Meade, the company contended that since there was no difference between the payment of dues and actual membership in a labor organization, the agency-shop provision was unlawful.