§

Local 814, Teamsters

208 N.L.R.B. 184 (N.L.R.B. 1974)
Local 814, Teamsters

12 Cited authorities

  1. National Woodwork Manufacturers Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    386 U.S. 612 (1967)   Cited 392 times
    Holding that union employees' refusal to install third-party manufacturer's product was not prohibited under § 158(b)(B), because it was an action "pressuring the [union members'] employer for agreements regulating relations between [the employer] and his own employees"

  2. Board v. Hearst Publications

    322 U.S. 111 (1944)   Cited 792 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether newsboys were independent contractors or employees under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA")

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United Insurance Co. of America

    390 U.S. 254 (1968)   Cited 327 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive"

  4. United States v. Silk

    331 U.S. 704 (1947)   Cited 542 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that truck drivers who owned their own trucks and hired their own helpers were "small businessmen" who were properly classified as independent contractors

  5. Glens Falls Ins. v. U.S. for Use of Newton L

    390 U.S. 905 (1968)   Cited 91 times
    Noting the undesirability of determining the conscious objective of a union in obtaining the inclusion of a challenged provision in a collective bargaining agreement on a bare stipulation of facts which supplies no indication of purpose or intention beyond the language of the provision and the general bargaining history

  6. Meat Hwy. Dri., Dockmen, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    335 F.2d 709 (D.C. Cir. 1964)   Cited 44 times
    Subcontracting in cases of lack of equipment to companies employing members of same local whenever possible

  7. A. DUIE PYLE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR REL. BD

    383 F.2d 772 (3d Cir. 1967)   Cited 28 times
    In A. Duie Pyle we noted that it is "undesirable to determine the conscious objective of a union in obtaining the inclusion of a challenged provision... on a bare stipulation of facts."

  8. District No. 9 v. N.L.R.B

    315 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1962)   Cited 24 times

    No. 16901. Argued September 27, 1962. Decided November 15, 1962. Mr. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Plato E. Papps, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Melvin J. Welles, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Milk Drivers Dairy Emp. L. U. 584

    341 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1965)   Cited 18 times

    No. 288, Docket 29130. Argued January 12, 1965. Decided January 26, 1965. Melvin J. Welles, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Linda R. Sher, Attorney, NLRB, on the brief), for petitioner. Bruce H. Simon, New York City (Robert S. Savelson, New York City, of counsel, and Cohen Weiss, New York City, on the brief), for respondent. Before SMITH, KAUFMAN and ANDERSON

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Joint Council of Teamsters No. 38

    338 F.2d 23 (9th Cir. 1964)   Cited 16 times
    Subcontracting restricted to signatories of multi-employer agreement