Longshoremen Local 1575 (Navieras, NPR)

15 Cited authorities

Vaca v. Sipes
386 U.S. 171 (1967) Cited 4,217 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, under the LMRA, an "individual employee has absolute right to have his grievance taken to arbitration regardless of the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement"
Air Line Pilots v. O'Neill
499 U.S. 65 (1991) Cited 1,079 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that this rule "applies to all union activity"
Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge
403 U.S. 274 (1971) Cited 830 times
Holding wrongful discharge action brought in state court precluded by pervasiveness of federal regulation in the area
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman
345 U.S. 330 (1953) Cited 882 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union acting in its representative capacity owes a duty of fair representation to those on whose behalf it acts
Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.
356 U.S. 342 (1958) Cited 296 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."
N.L.R.B. v. Miranda Fuel Co., Inc.
326 F.2d 172 (2d Cir. 1963) Cited 98 times
No. 73, Docket 26232. Argued October 21, 1963. Decided December 11, 1963. Melvin J. Welles, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Herman M. Levy, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Samuel J. Cohen, New York City (Jack Last and Cohen Weiss, New York City, on the brief), for respondent Union. Ruth
Teamsters Local Union No. 42 v. N.L.R.B
825 F.2d 608 (1st Cir. 1987) Cited 31 times
Holding that claim accrued when union announced to the plaintiffs that they had been assigned to less desirable shift, even though negotiations with employer regarding the seniority system that would dictate shift assignments occurred two months later
American Postal Workers v. Am. Postal Wkrs
665 F.2d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1981) Cited 37 times
Holding that plaintiffs may not use Rule 19 to join employer in action against union unless plaintiffs show employer "to have been implicated in the union's breach of duty to its members"
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 310 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
587 F.2d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 1978) Cited 40 times
Binding plaintiffs without their consent to a new CBA, determining their rights vis-à-vis their employer going forward, implicates the duty of fair representation
Houchens Market of Elizabethtown v. N.L.R.B
375 F.2d 208 (6th Cir. 1967) Cited 28 times
In Houchens, for example, the union initially told the employer that "any contract proposal or recommendation would be subject to approval by the employees."
Section 401 - Congressional declaration of findings, purposes, and policy
29 U.S.C. § 401 Cited 1,047 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that the LMRDA was essential to "afford necessary protection of the rights and interests of employees and the public generally as they relate to the activities of labor organizations . . ."

Longshoremen Local 1575 (Navieras, NPR)

15 Cited authorities

Holding that, under the LMRA, an "individual employee has absolute right to have his grievance taken to arbitration regardless of the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement"

Holding that this rule "applies to all union activity"

Holding wrongful discharge action brought in state court precluded by pervasiveness of federal regulation in the area

Holding that a union acting in its representative capacity owes a duty of fair representation to those on whose behalf it acts

Holding that claim accrued when union announced to the plaintiffs that they had been assigned to less desirable shift, even though negotiations with employer regarding the seniority system that would dictate shift assignments occurred two months later

Holding that plaintiffs may not use Rule 19 to join employer in action against union unless plaintiffs show employer "to have been implicated in the union's breach of duty to its members"

Binding plaintiffs without their consent to a new CBA, determining their rights vis-à-vis their employer going forward, implicates the duty of fair representation

In Houchens, for example, the union initially told the employer that "any contract proposal or recommendation would be subject to approval by the employees."

Finding that the LMRDA was essential to "afford necessary protection of the rights and interests of employees and the public generally as they relate to the activities of labor organizations . . ."