ยง

Local Lodge 790, Int'l Association of Machinists

150 N.L.R.B. 565 (N.L.R.B. 1964)
Local Lodge 790, Int'l Association of Machinists

6 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Fruit Packers

    377 U.S. 58 (1964)   Cited 236 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NLRA section 8(b)(B) does not prohibit "peaceful picketing . . . limited . . . to persuading Safeway customers not to buy Washington State apples when they traded in Safeway stores"

  2. Markham v. Cabell

    326 U.S. 404 (1945)   Cited 347 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Markham v. Cabell, 326 U.S. 404, 409, 66 S.Ct. 193, 195, the Court said, "The policy as well as the letter of the law is a guide to decision.

  3. 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 ยง 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."

  4. Cabell v. Markham

    148 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1945)   Cited 393 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Warning "not to make a fortress out of the dictionary"

  5. National Labor Rel. Board v. Baltimore T. Co.

    140 F.2d 51 (4th Cir. 1944)   Cited 57 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Baltimore T. Co., 4 Cir., 140 F.2d 51, the court alluded with apparent approval to the fact that the Board had endeavored to avoid making its sanctions operate retroactively.

  6. Penello v. Warehouse Employees Union Local No. 570

    230 F. Supp. 892 (D. Md. 1964)   Cited 2 times

    Civ. No. 15305. May 11, 1964. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, and Julius G. Serot, Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., and David C. Sachs, Regional Atty., Henry L. Segal, Asst. Regional Atty. and Edward J. Gutman, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Region 5, Baltimore, Md., for petitioner. Jacob J. Edelman and Bernard W. Rubenstein, Baltimore, Md., for respondents. THOMSEN, Chief Judge. In this proceeding under sec. 10( l)