International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 357, AFL-CIO (Desert Sun Enterprises Lim

10 Cited authorities

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 61,293 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that officers must inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used as evidence against them, and that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, prior to the interrogation
Labor Board v. Denver Bldg. Council
341 U.S. 675 (1951) Cited 494 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming Board's assertion of jurisdiction over activities taking place at local construction site based on finding that "any widespread application of the practices charged might well result in substantially decreasing" the flow of interstate commerce
Teamsters Local v. Labor Board
365 U.S. 667 (1961) Cited 174 times
Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria
Longshoremen v. Allied International, Inc.
456 U.S. 212 (1982) Cited 74 times
Finding foreseeability relevant in determining damages, and rejecting argument that union did not foresee that refusing to handle a shipper's cargo would result in disruption of the shipper's business as facially implausible
Labor Board v. Servette
377 U.S. 46 (1964) Cited 74 times
Holding under section 8(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b), that statutory protection for the distribution of handbills would be undermined if a threat to engage in protected conduct were not itself protected
Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
463 U.S. 147 (1983) Cited 21 times
Vacating and remanding for consideration of statutory question
Sheet Metal v. N.L.R.B
491 F.3d 429 (D.C. Cir. 2007) Cited 8 times
Holding that a mock funeral performed in front of a hospital "may have been unsettling or even offensive," but was not coercive under Section 8(b)
Board v. Workers
251 F. App'x 101 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 1 times
No. 06-4124. Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 19, 2007. Filed: October 12, 2007. Application for Enforcement of Order Issued by the National Labor Relations Board, N.L.R.B. Nos. 4-CC-2214, 4-CC-2244, 4-CB-8348, 4-CC-2240, 4-CB-8300, 4-CC-2246, 4-CC-2248. Jill A. Griffin, Amy Ginn, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Richard B. Sigmond, Stephen J. Holroyd, Jennings Sigmond, Philadelphia, PA, for Respondent. Before: SLOVITER, SMITH, and GARTH
N.L.R.B. v. Ironworkers Local 433
850 F.2d 551 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 16 times
In Ironworkers, this circuit rejected the NLRB's conclusion "that any threat to picket a primary employer at a common situs will be conclusively presumed to have an unlawful purpose unless the union proclaims that its picketing will be conducted in a lawful manner."
United Ass'n of Journeymen v. N.L.R.B
912 F.2d 1108 (9th Cir. 1990) Cited 5 times
Nos. 89-70289, 89-70336. Argued and Submitted July 13, 1990. Decided August 30, 1990. Hugh Hafer, Hafer, Price, Rinehart Schwerin, Seattle, Washington, for petitioner/respondent. Judith A. Dowd, Supervisory Atty., Joseph J. Jablonski, Jr., Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent/petitioner. On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before HUG, NELSON and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. HUG, Circuit Judge: I. The United States Association of Journeymen and

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 357, AFL-CIO (Desert Sun Enterprises Lim

10 Cited authorities

Holding that officers must inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used as evidence against them, and that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, prior to the interrogation

Affirming Board's assertion of jurisdiction over activities taking place at local construction site based on finding that "any widespread application of the practices charged might well result in substantially decreasing" the flow of interstate commerce

Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria

Finding foreseeability relevant in determining damages, and rejecting argument that union did not foresee that refusing to handle a shipper's cargo would result in disruption of the shipper's business as facially implausible

Holding under section 8(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b), that statutory protection for the distribution of handbills would be undermined if a threat to engage in protected conduct were not itself protected

Vacating and remanding for consideration of statutory question

Holding that a mock funeral performed in front of a hospital "may have been unsettling or even offensive," but was not coercive under Section 8(b)

In Ironworkers, this circuit rejected the NLRB's conclusion "that any threat to picket a primary employer at a common situs will be conclusively presumed to have an unlawful purpose unless the union proclaims that its picketing will be conducted in a lawful manner."