Ironworkers District Council Of The Pacific North-West And Local Union No. 29 Of International Association Of Bridge, Structural And Ornamne-Tal Iron Workers

22 Cited authorities

Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
456 U.S. 645 (1982) Cited 269 times
Holding that "the Court of Appeals lack[ed] jurisdiction to review objections that were not urged before the Board"
National Woodwork Manufacturers Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
386 U.S. 612 (1967) Cited 392 times
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"
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
Electrical Workers v. Labor Board
366 U.S. 667 (1961) Cited 186 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union may picket a secondary employer only when the primary employer is at the job site
Electrical Workers v. Labor Board
341 U.S. 694 (1951) Cited 246 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prohibition of picketing in furtherance of unlawful objectives is not an abridgement of free speech
The Ansul Co. v. Uniroyal, Inc.
404 U.S. 1018 (1972) Cited 54 times 1 Legal Analyses
Nos. 71-537, 71-539. January 11, 1972, OCTOBER TERM, 1971. Facts and opinion, D.C., 301 F.Supp. 273; 306 F.Supp. 541; 448 F.2d 872. C.A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 448 F. 2d 872.
A. L. Adams Construction Co. v. Georgia Power Co.
471 U.S. 1075 (1985) Cited 25 times
No. 84-1402. April 29, 1985. C.A. 11th Cir. Motion of Georgia Branch, Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition. Reported below: 733 F. 2d 853.
N.L.R.B. v. Don Burgess Const. Corp.
596 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1979) Cited 101 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that section 10(b) limitations period begins to run when the employee "discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the acts constituting the alleged [violation]"
Donald Schriver, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
635 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1980) Cited 28 times
Nos. 78-2177, 79-1001. Argued June 17, 1980. Decided October 20, 1980. Gerard C. Smetana, Chicago, Ill., with whom William H. DuRoss, III, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for Schriver, Inc., petitioner in No. 78-2177 and intervenor in No. 79-1001. John H. Ferguson, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., with whom William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel and William M. Bernstein
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bus. Mach
228 F.2d 553 (2d Cir. 1955) Cited 67 times
In National Labor Relations Bd. v. Business Mach. etc., CIO (228 F.2d 553) the Circuit Court of Appeals for this circuit declared (p. 559) that "The only thing proscribed by § 8(b)(4) is inducement or encouragement of the employees of the customers".
Section 160 - Prevention of unfair labor practices
29 U.S.C. § 160 Cited 7,062 times 23 Legal Analyses
Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB

Ironworkers District Council Of The Pacific North-West And Local Union No. 29 Of International Association Of Bridge, Structural And Ornamne-Tal Iron Workers

22 Cited authorities

Holding that "the Court of Appeals lack[ed] jurisdiction to review objections that were not urged before the Board"

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"

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 a union may picket a secondary employer only when the primary employer is at the job site

Holding that the prohibition of picketing in furtherance of unlawful objectives is not an abridgement of free speech

Holding that section 10(b) limitations period begins to run when the employee "discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the acts constituting the alleged [violation]"

In National Labor Relations Bd. v. Business Mach. etc., CIO (228 F.2d 553) the Circuit Court of Appeals for this circuit declared (p. 559) that "The only thing proscribed by § 8(b)(4) is inducement or encouragement of the employees of the customers".

Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB