Local 375, Teamsters

13 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
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
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"
International Bhd. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
181 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1950) Cited 89 times
No. 102, Docket 21365. Argued January 4, 1950. Decided February 24, 1950. S.A. Syme, White Plains, N.Y., L. Sherman, P.R. Collins, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. A.N. Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., Robert N. Denham, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Albert M. Dreyer, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., James V. Altieri, New York City, for respondent. Louis Sherman, Washington, D.C., for Brotherhood of Elect
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".
Wirtz v. B.A.C. Steel Products, Inc.
312 F.2d 14 (4th Cir. 1962) Cited 29 times
In B.A.C., the Secretary supplied the exact information here requested by defendant, and if plaintiff will just do what Secretary Wirtz did voluntarily in B.A.C., defendant will have the information it wants.
Douds v. Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Ect.
75 F. Supp. 672 (S.D.N.Y. 1948) Cited 51 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Douds v. Metropolitan Federation of Architects, etc., 75 F. Supp. 672 (S.D.N.Y. 1948), the court laid heavy emphasis on the economic effect of the work performed by the ally's employees.
N.L.R.B. v. Georgia Rug Mill
308 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1962) Cited 22 times
No. 19223. September 18, 1962. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Frank A. Constangy, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent. Before BROWN, WISDOM and BELL, Circuit Judges. WISDOM, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order that the respondent, Georgia Rug Mill, cease violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §
National Labor Relations Bd. v. United BHD
184 F.2d 60 (10th Cir. 1950) Cited 22 times
No. 3969. August 14, 1950. Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C. (Robert N. Denham, David P. Findling, and A. Norman Somers, all of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Clif. Langsdale, Kansas City, Mo. (John J. Manning, Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for respondents. Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges. BRATTON, Circuit Judge. In presently pertinent part, section 8(b)(4)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended by the Labor-Management
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,092 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 375, Teamsters

13 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

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

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 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".

In B.A.C., the Secretary supplied the exact information here requested by defendant, and if plaintiff will just do what Secretary Wirtz did voluntarily in B.A.C., defendant will have the information it wants.

In Douds v. Metropolitan Federation of Architects, etc., 75 F. Supp. 672 (S.D.N.Y. 1948), the court laid heavy emphasis on the economic effect of the work performed by the ally's employees.

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"