Local 239, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters,Etc.

17 Cited authorities

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
Hughes v. Superior Court
339 U.S. 460 (1950) Cited 285 times
In Hughes v. Superior Court, 339 U.S. 460, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not bar use of the injunction to prohibit picketing of a place of business solely to secure compliance with a demand that its employees be hired in percentage to the racial origin of its customers.
Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co.
311 U.S. 584 (1941) Cited 338 times
Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"
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
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 695 v. Vogt, Inc.
354 U.S. 284 (1957) Cited 163 times
In Teamsters Union, supra, a railroad was held to be barred from seeking relief in the state courts against a secondary boycott.
Bakery & Pastry Drivers & Helpers Local 802 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Wohl
315 U.S. 769 (1942) Cited 236 times
Reversing an injunction against peaceful picketing
Labor Bd. v. Greyhound Lines
303 U.S. 261 (1938) Cited 264 times
In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.
Building Service Union v. Gazzam
339 U.S. 532 (1950) Cited 182 times
In Building Service E.I.U. v. Gazzam, 339 U.S. 532, 94 L.Ed. 1045, 70 S.Ct. 784 (1950), the representatives of the unions called upon Gazzam to sign a contract which would require his fifteen employees at the Enetai Inn to join their union.
Labor Board v. Drivers Local Union
362 U.S. 274 (1960) Cited 109 times 1 Legal Analyses
In NLRB v. Drivers Local 639, 362 U.S. 274 (1960), the Court held that § 8(b)(1)(A) was "a grant of power to the Board limited to authority to proceed against union tactics involving violence, intimidation, and reprisal or threats thereof."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.
360 U.S. 301 (1959) Cited 106 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred

Local 239, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters,Etc.

17 Cited authorities

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

In Hughes v. Superior Court, 339 U.S. 460, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not bar use of the injunction to prohibit picketing of a place of business solely to secure compliance with a demand that its employees be hired in percentage to the racial origin of its customers.

Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"

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

In Teamsters Union, supra, a railroad was held to be barred from seeking relief in the state courts against a secondary boycott.

Reversing an injunction against peaceful picketing

In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.

In Building Service E.I.U. v. Gazzam, 339 U.S. 532, 94 L.Ed. 1045, 70 S.Ct. 784 (1950), the representatives of the unions called upon Gazzam to sign a contract which would require his fifteen employees at the Enetai Inn to join their union.

In NLRB v. Drivers Local 639, 362 U.S. 274 (1960), the Court held that § 8(b)(1)(A) was "a grant of power to the Board limited to authority to proceed against union tactics involving violence, intimidation, and reprisal or threats thereof."

Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred