Local 12, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, Etc.

18 Cited authorities

Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (1957) Cited 59,248 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"
Humphrey v. Moore
375 U.S. 335 (1964) Cited 760 times
Holding that the union did not breach its duty of fair representation in negotiating a deal which favored some members of the same bargaining unit over others
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman
345 U.S. 330 (1953) Cited 881 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union acting in its representative capacity owes a duty of fair representation to those on whose behalf it acts
Steele v. L. N.R. Co.
323 U.S. 192 (1944) Cited 959 times
Holding that a labor organization must represent all members of a "craft or class of employees . . . regardless of their union affiliations or want of them"
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. Borg-Warner Corp.
356 U.S. 342 (1958) Cited 296 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."
Tunstall v. Brotherhood
323 U.S. 210 (1944) Cited 286 times
In Tunstall v. Brotherhood, 323 U.S. 210, the federal right was derived from the federal duty of the union to act as bargaining representative for all members of the union.
H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 514 (1941) Cited 241 times 1 Legal Analyses
In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.
Wallace Corp. v. Labor Board
323 U.S. 248 (1944) Cited 162 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that corporation committed unfair labor practice
Hunt v. Crumboch
325 U.S. 821 (1945) Cited 110 times
Holding that a union did not incur antitrust liability when it refused to work with the petitioner "due to personal antagonism"

Local 12, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, Etc.

18 Cited authorities

Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

Holding that the union did not breach its duty of fair representation in negotiating a deal which favored some members of the same bargaining unit over others

Holding that a union acting in its representative capacity owes a duty of fair representation to those on whose behalf it acts

Holding that a labor organization must represent all members of a "craft or class of employees . . . regardless of their union affiliations or want of them"

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

In Tunstall v. Brotherhood, 323 U.S. 210, the federal right was derived from the federal duty of the union to act as bargaining representative for all members of the union.

In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

Holding that corporation committed unfair labor practice

Holding that a union did not incur antitrust liability when it refused to work with the petitioner "due to personal antagonism"