Local 1205 & 707 Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.

27 Cited authorities

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,683 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
Jencks v. United States
353 U.S. 657 (1957) Cited 1,104 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants are entitled to obtain the prior statements of persons to government agents when those persons are to testify against the defendants at trial
Garner v. Teamsters Union
346 U.S. 485 (1953) Cited 690 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Garner the emphasis was not on two conflicting labor statutes but rather on two similar remedies, one state and one federal, brought to bear on precisely the same conduct.
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board
313 U.S. 177 (1941) Cited 872 times
Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
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
Carpenters' Union v. Labor Board
357 U.S. 93 (1958) Cited 201 times
Rejecting Government position that we should defer to the Board's interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act
Labor Board v. Lion Oil Co.
352 U.S. 282 (1957) Cited 139 times
Observing that the court bears "a judicial responsibility to find that interpretation which can most fairly be said to be embedded in the statute, in the sense of being most harmonious with its scheme and with the general purposes that Congress manifested"
Labor Board v. Rice Milling Co.
341 U.S. 665 (1951) Cited 126 times
Noting that section 8(b) was intended to preserve "the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes"
Teamsters Union v. N. Y., N. H. H.R. Co.
350 U.S. 155 (1956) Cited 53 times
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 33. Argued November 10, 1955. Decided January 9, 1956. An interstate railroad which engaged in hauling loaded truck-trailers "piggy-back" brought an action in a state court to enjoin a labor union from conduct which interfered with such operation and which allegedly violated the Labor Management Relations Act. Employees of motor carriers with which the union had collective bargaining agreements had been persuaded by agents of the union to refrain
Rabouin v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
195 F.2d 906 (2d Cir. 1952) Cited 75 times
In Rabouin v. N.L.R.B., 195 F.2d 906 (2nd Cir., 1962), Justice Clark, then a Circuit Judge, specifically held that a union's demand for damages equal in amount to the wages paid a non-union driver was not an attempted exaction in violation of § 8(b)(6).
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,095 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"
Section 151 - Definitions; short title
45 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 2,964 times 7 Legal Analyses
Defining "minor dispute" as disputes "growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions."

Local 1205 & 707 Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.

27 Cited authorities

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

Holding that defendants are entitled to obtain the prior statements of persons to government agents when those persons are to testify against the defendants at trial

In Garner the emphasis was not on two conflicting labor statutes but rather on two similar remedies, one state and one federal, brought to bear on precisely the same conduct.

Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

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

Rejecting Government position that we should defer to the Board's interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act

Observing that the court bears "a judicial responsibility to find that interpretation which can most fairly be said to be embedded in the statute, in the sense of being most harmonious with its scheme and with the general purposes that Congress manifested"

Noting that section 8(b) was intended to preserve "the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes"

In Rabouin v. N.L.R.B., 195 F.2d 906 (2nd Cir., 1962), Justice Clark, then a Circuit Judge, specifically held that a union's demand for damages equal in amount to the wages paid a non-union driver was not an attempted exaction in violation of § 8(b)(6).

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"

Defining "minor dispute" as disputes "growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions."