Mead Corporation, The

12 Cited authorities

H. K. Porter Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
397 U.S. 99 (1970) Cited 222 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the NLRB is "without power to compel a company or a union to agree to any substantive contractual provision of a collective-bargaining agreement."
H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 514 (1941) Cited 241 times 1 Legal Analyses
In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Allied Products Corp.
548 F.2d 644 (6th Cir. 1977) Cited 70 times
In NLRB v. Allied Prods. Corp., 548 F.2d 644 (6th Cir. 1977), the court upheld the NLRB's conclusion that the discontinuance of an annual review program violated the Act, while in NLRB v. Dothan Eagle, Inc., 434 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 1970), the raises at issue were not "totally discretionary" but rather "automatic progression wage increases" of "10 to 15 cents per hour" that "were regularly granted every six months."
Timken Roller Bearing Company v. N.L.R.B
325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963) Cited 56 times
In Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 971, 84 S.Ct. 1135, 12 L.Ed.2d 85 (1964), the court considered a union request for information concerning five grievances that awaited hearings before a chosen arbitrator.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 433
600 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1979) Cited 31 times
Holding that "[t]he Board may properly find an unfair labor practice when the issue has been fully litigated even though not specifically pleaded in the complaint"
United States v. Callahan
551 F.2d 733 (6th Cir. 1977) Cited 18 times
In United States v. Callahan, 551 F.2d 733, 736-37 (6th Cir. 1977), we held that allegations of prior acts in which a business would pay off unions as a matter of sound business judgment were relevant to the issue of whether a business leader was motivated by fear in paying off a union leader.
N.L.R.B. v. East Side Shopper, Inc.
498 F.2d 1334 (6th Cir. 1974) Cited 13 times
In NLRB v East Side Shopper (498 F.2d 1334) the board found that the employer had violated the act by (1) its coercive interrogation of one employee, (2) granting vacation benefits to part-time employees, (3) instituting new rules on layoff and grievance procedures, and (4) discharging three employees who had participated in the union organization effort.
N.L.R.B. v. Ramona's Mexican Food Products
531 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1975) Cited 10 times
No. 73-2450. November 26, 1975. Patrick H. Hardin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (argued), for petitioner. George Jensen, Los Angeles, Cal. (argued), for respondent. Before CHAMBERS and BROWNING, Circuit Judges, and EAST, Senior District Judge. Honorable William G. East, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. OPINION PER CURIAM. The National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter Board), pursuant to Section 10(e), 29 U.S.C. § 160(e), of the National
N.L.R.B. v. Central Machine Tool Company
429 F.2d 1127 (10th Cir. 1970) Cited 14 times
No. 543-69. July 15, 1970. John I. Taylor, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Ronald Greenberg, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief) for petitioner. Frank Carter, Enid, Okla. (Stephen Jones, Enid, Okla., on the brief) for respondent. Before PHILLIPS, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges. HILL, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board is before this Court seeking
Retail Clerks International Ass'n v. N.L.R.B
373 F.2d 655 (D.C. Cir. 1967) Cited 16 times
Nos. 19682, 19766. Argued May 24, 1966. Decided January 6, 1967. Mr. Tim L. Bornstein, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. S.G. Lippman, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner in No. 19682 and intervenor in No. 19766. Mr. Narcisse A. Brown, Chicago, Ill., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. John W. Noble, Jr., Chicago, Ill., Frederick M. Rowe and Ronald J. Wilson, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for petitioner in No

Mead Corporation, The

12 Cited authorities

Holding that the NLRB is "without power to compel a company or a union to agree to any substantive contractual provision of a collective-bargaining agreement."

In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

In Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 971, 84 S.Ct. 1135, 12 L.Ed.2d 85 (1964), the court considered a union request for information concerning five grievances that awaited hearings before a chosen arbitrator.

Holding that "[t]he Board may properly find an unfair labor practice when the issue has been fully litigated even though not specifically pleaded in the complaint"

In United States v. Callahan, 551 F.2d 733, 736-37 (6th Cir. 1977), we held that allegations of prior acts in which a business would pay off unions as a matter of sound business judgment were relevant to the issue of whether a business leader was motivated by fear in paying off a union leader.