Local Union 136, Carpenters

13 Cited authorities

  1. Garner v. Teamsters Union

    346 U.S. 485 (1953)   Cited 690 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Garner the emphasis was not on two conflicting labor statutes but rather on two similar remedies, one state and one federal, brought to bear on precisely the same conduct.
  2. Radio Officers v. Labor Board

    347 U.S. 17 (1954)   Cited 470 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
  3. Labor Board v. General Motors

    373 U.S. 734 (1963)   Cited 190 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that termination is also the appropriate sanction for failure to pay fees under an agency-shop clause
  4. Teamsters Local v. Labor Board

    365 U.S. 667 (1961)   Cited 174 times
    Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria
  5. Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.

    309 U.S. 350 (1940)   Cited 315 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA
  6. Amalgamated Workers v. Edison Co.

    309 U.S. 261 (1940)   Cited 211 times
    In Amalgamated Workers v. Edison Co., 309 U.S. 261, we held that the Board had implied authority to institute contempt proceedings for violation of court decrees enforcing orders of the Board.
  7. Labor Board v. I. M. Electric Co.

    318 U.S. 9 (1943)   Cited 108 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Indiana Michigan Electric Co., 318 U.S. 9, at page 28, 63 S.Ct. 394, at page 405, 87 L.Ed. 579, the Supreme Court stated the general fundamental principles with respect to findings of fact by the Board, saying that the reviewing court is given discretion to see that before a party's rights are foreclosed his case has been fairly heard, and "Findings cannot be said to have been fairly reached unless material evidence which might impeach, as well as that which will support, its findings, is heard and weighed."
  8. Building Material Teamsters v. N.L.R.B

    275 F.2d 909 (2d Cir. 1960)   Cited 13 times

    Nos. 107-108, Dockets 25608-25614. Argued January 5, 1960. Decided March 2, 1960. Jack Last, New York City (Stanley B. Blumberg and Cohen and Weiss, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner Local 282, Internatl. Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Abbie Goldstein, New York City (Hyman Fried, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner Crawford Clothes, Inc. Frederick U. Reel, Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Associate

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hopwood R. Co.

    98 F.2d 97 (2d Cir. 1938)   Cited 32 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Hopwood Retinning Co., 98 F.2d 97, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit based its conclusion that a company engaged in repairing milk and ice cream containers was engaged in "interstate commerce" within the meaning of the Act upon the fact that 23% of the containers on which work was to be done were transported in the company's truck from and to states other than the state where the work was performed.
  10. N.L.R.B. v. LOCAL UNION NO. 450, ETC

    281 F.2d 313 (5th Cir. 1960)   Cited 8 times

    No. 17977. July 12, 1960. Melvin Pollack, Atty., N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Russell Specter, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Robert C. Eckhardt, Houston, Tex., for respondents. Before CAMERON, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges. WISDOM, Circuit Judge. The National Labor

  11. 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"