George E. Light Boat Storage, Inc.

19 Cited authorities

Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour Co.
369 U.S. 95 (1962) Cited 1,181 times
Holding that "under the mandate of Lincoln Mills " federal labor law is "paramount" when deciding issues raised under § 301
Smith v. Evening News Assn
371 U.S. 195 (1962) Cited 815 times
Holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney
368 U.S. 502 (1962) Cited 575 times
Holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over § 301 claims
Board v. Hearst Publications
322 U.S. 111 (1944) Cited 791 times 8 Legal Analyses
Determining whether newsboys were independent contractors or employees under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA")
Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.
370 U.S. 9 (1962) Cited 206 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections
Employees v. Westinghouse Corp.
348 U.S. 437 (1955) Cited 245 times
Noting that the "litigation provoking problem" in deciding whether federal jurisdiction exists in such cases is determining "the degree to which federal law must be in the forefront of the case and not be remote, collateral or peripheral"
Labor Board v. Crompton Mills
337 U.S. 217 (1949) Cited 102 times
Holding unlawful unilateral changes significantly different from "any which the employer has proposed" during bargaining
Rabouin v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
195 F.2d 906 (2d Cir. 1952) Cited 75 times
In Rabouin v. N.L.R.B., 195 F.2d 906 (2nd Cir., 1962), Justice Clark, then a Circuit Judge, specifically held that a union's demand for damages equal in amount to the wages paid a non-union driver was not an attempted exaction in violation of § 8(b)(6).
Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp.
167 N.E. 235 (Mass. 1929) Cited 113 times
In Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp. 267 Mass. 501, 516, the court said: "A violation of a statute, ordinance or regulation, although not conclusive, is evidence of negligence on the part of a violator as to all consequences that the statute, ordinance or regulation was intended to prevent."

George E. Light Boat Storage, Inc.

19 Cited authorities

Holding that "under the mandate of Lincoln Mills " federal labor law is "paramount" when deciding issues raised under § 301

Holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union

Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

Holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over § 301 claims

Determining whether newsboys were independent contractors or employees under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA")

Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

Noting that the "litigation provoking problem" in deciding whether federal jurisdiction exists in such cases is determining "the degree to which federal law must be in the forefront of the case and not be remote, collateral or peripheral"

Holding unlawful unilateral changes significantly different from "any which the employer has proposed" during bargaining

In Rabouin v. N.L.R.B., 195 F.2d 906 (2nd Cir., 1962), Justice Clark, then a Circuit Judge, specifically held that a union's demand for damages equal in amount to the wages paid a non-union driver was not an attempted exaction in violation of § 8(b)(6).

In Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp. 267 Mass. 501, 516, the court said: "A violation of a statute, ordinance or regulation, although not conclusive, is evidence of negligence on the part of a violator as to all consequences that the statute, ordinance or regulation was intended to prevent."