National Woodwork Manufacturers Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

Holding that union employees' refusal to install third-party manufacturer's product was not prohibited under § 158(b)(B), because it was an action "pressuring the [union members'] employer for agreements regulating relations between [the employer] and his own employees"

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.

Holding that majority rule concept is at the center of federal labor policy

Teamsters Union v. Oliver

In Teamsters v. Oliver, 358 U.S. 283 (1959), we held that a state antitrust law could not be used to challenge an employer-union agreement. Justice White's opinion in Jewel Tea explains, however, that Oliver held only that "[a]s the agreement did not embody a `"remote and indirect approach to the subject of wages'... but a direct frontal attack upon a problem thought to threaten the maintenance of the basic wage structure established by the collective bargaining contract,' [358 U.S.], at 294, the paramount federal policy of encouraging collective bargaining proscribed application of the state law.

Glens Falls Ins. v. U.S. for Use of Newton L

Noting the undesirability of determining the conscious objective of a union in obtaining the inclusion of a challenged provision in a collective bargaining agreement on a bare stipulation of facts which supplies no indication of purpose or intention beyond the language of the provision and the general bargaining history

Teamsters Union v. Oliver

A. DUIE PYLE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR REL. BD

In A. Duie Pyle we noted that it is "undesirable to determine the conscious objective of a union in obtaining the inclusion of a challenged provision... on a bare stipulation of facts."