Local 19 Hotel, Motel, Restarunt Employees and Bartenders Union

20 Cited authorities

Linn v. Plant Guard Workers
383 U.S. 53 (1966) Cited 732 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding as preempted all defamation actions in labor disputes except those published with actual malice
Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board
350 U.S. 270 (1956) Cited 403 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"
Labor Board v. Electrical Workers
346 U.S. 464 (1953) Cited 125 times 41 Legal Analyses
Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute
Allied Industrial Workers, AFL-CIO Local Union No. 289 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
476 F.2d 868 (D.C. Cir. 1973) Cited 48 times
Noting that "naked information" regarding the filing of a decertification petition without information regarding the number of signatories is insufficient to create good faith doubt of union majority status, even with additional evidence present
N.L.R.B. v. W. C. McQuaide, Inc.
552 F.2d 519 (3d Cir. 1977) Cited 40 times
In McQuaide, supra, we stated flatly: "Rather than focus on either the subjective intent of the striker or the perception of the `victim,' we adopt an objective standard to determine whether conduct constitutes a threat sufficiently egregious to justify" the imposition of sanctions by the employer.
Larand Leisurelies, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
523 F.2d 814 (6th Cir. 1975) Cited 37 times
No. 74-2325. Argued June 10, 1975. Decided October 1, 1975. As Amended October 15, 1975. W. Bruce Baird, Matthew R. Westfall, Middleton, Reutlinger Baird, Louisville, Ky., Jay S. Siegel, Siegel, O'Connor Kainen, Hartford, Conn., for petitioner. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Hope P. Zelasko, Emil C. Farkas, Regional Director, 9th Region, N.L.R.B., Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondent. Herbert L. Segal, Irwin H. Cutler, Jr., Segal, Isenberg, Sales, Stewart Nutt
N.L.R.B. v. Cement Transport, Inc.
490 F.2d 1024 (6th Cir. 1974) Cited 35 times
No. 73-1260. Argued October 17, 1973. Decided January 22, 1974. Rehearing Denied March 4, 1974. Lawrence Levien, N.L.R.B., for petitioner; Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Assistant Gen. Counsel, Alan D. Cirker, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Louis E. Woolery, Louisville, Ky., for respondent; James U. Smith, Jr., Louisville, Ky., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and O'SULLIVAN
Local 833, Uaw-Afl-Cio, Etc. v. N.L.R.B
300 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir. 1962) Cited 40 times
Nos. 15961, 16031, 16182. Argued September 11, 1961. Decided January 26, 1962. Certiorari Denied June 4, 1962. See 82 S.Ct. 1258. Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., and Mr. Louis H. Pollak, New Haven, Conn., of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. John Silard, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for Local 833, UAW-AFL-CIO, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, petitioner
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thayer Co.
213 F.2d 748 (1st Cir. 1954) Cited 40 times
In Thayer, the court first announced that if the activity causing dismissal was protected under § 7 of the Act then denial of reinstatement was unlawful. If the activity was unprotected under § 7, however, the legality of the denial was to be determined according to a balancing test.
Hambre Hombre Enterprises, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
581 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1978) Cited 6 times
No. 77-1613. July 12, 1978. Rehearing Denied September 5, 1978. Ralph M. Segura, Walnut Creek, Cal., for petitioner. Paul J. Spielberg (argued), Elliott Moore, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition to Review Final Order of the National Labor Relations Board and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before SNEED and TANG, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK, District Judge. Honorable William H. Orrick, United States District Judge for the Northern District
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,091 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"

Local 19 Hotel, Motel, Restarunt Employees and Bartenders Union

20 Cited authorities

Holding as preempted all defamation actions in labor disputes except those published with actual malice

Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"

Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute

Noting that "naked information" regarding the filing of a decertification petition without information regarding the number of signatories is insufficient to create good faith doubt of union majority status, even with additional evidence present

In McQuaide, supra, we stated flatly: "Rather than focus on either the subjective intent of the striker or the perception of the `victim,' we adopt an objective standard to determine whether conduct constitutes a threat sufficiently egregious to justify" the imposition of sanctions by the employer.

In Thayer, the court first announced that if the activity causing dismissal was protected under § 7 of the Act then denial of reinstatement was unlawful. If the activity was unprotected under § 7, however, the legality of the denial was to be determined according to a balancing test.

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"