Intl. Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Un., Loc. 13

9 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.
388 U.S. 175 (1967) Cited 334 times
Holding that majority rule concept is at the center of federal labor policy
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. General Motors
373 U.S. 734 (1963) Cited 190 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that termination is also the appropriate sanction for failure to pay fees under an agency-shop clause
Scofield v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
394 U.S. 423 (1969) Cited 117 times 6 Legal Analyses
Upholding union rule, enforceable by fines and expulsion, imposing limitation on immediate pay that members could receive for piecework because Court found no "impairment of statutory labor policy"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. C & C Plywood Corp.
385 U.S. 421 (1967) Cited 117 times
Holding that the NLRB has the authority to interpret CBAs in the first instance where its interpretation is for the purpose of “enforc[ing] a statutory right which Congress considered necessary to allow labor and management to get on with the process of reaching fair terms and conditions of employment”
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.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.
322 F.2d 913 (9th Cir. 1963) Cited 18 times
No. 18364. September 23, 1963. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Melvin J. Welles and Paula Omansky, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Hill, Farrer Burrill, Carl M. Gould and Stanley E. Tobin, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Before HAMLEY, JERTBERG and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges. JERTBERG, Circuit Judge. This case is before the court on the petition of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter
N.L.R.B. v. C C Plywood Corp.
351 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1965) Cited 8 times
In C C Plywood the Supreme Court said that the disputed contract provision, in dealing with increases for "particular employee[s]", did not authorize a unilateral increase for a group of employees which would invalidate previously negotiated wage differentials.
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,092 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

Intl. Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Un., Loc. 13

9 Cited authorities

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

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

Holding that termination is also the appropriate sanction for failure to pay fees under an agency-shop clause

Upholding union rule, enforceable by fines and expulsion, imposing limitation on immediate pay that members could receive for piecework because Court found no "impairment of statutory labor policy"

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.

In C C Plywood the Supreme Court said that the disputed contract provision, in dealing with increases for "particular employee[s]", did not authorize a unilateral increase for a group of employees which would invalidate previously negotiated wage differentials.

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"