§

Movers and Warehousemen's Assn. of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., Inc.

224 N.L.R.B. 356 (N.L.R.B. 1976)
Movers and Warehousemen's Assn. of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board

    380 U.S. 300 (1965)   Cited 350 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful

  2. 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."

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Remington Rand, Inc.

    94 F.2d 862 (2d Cir. 1938)   Cited 178 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, 2 Cir., 94 F.2d 862, 869, the Board had ordered the employer to deal exclusively with a joint board which had brought the unfair labor practice charges involved in that case.

  4. 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."

  5. Lane v. N.L.R.B

    418 F.2d 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1969)   Cited 11 times
    In Lane v. N.L.R.B., 418 F.2d 1208, 1209-12 (D.C. Cir. 1969), the Supreme Court's approach to § 8(a)(1) and § 8(a)(3) of the Act was described as being in a "state of flux".

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Darlington Veneer

    236 F.2d 85 (4th Cir. 1956)   Cited 16 times

    No. 7194. Argued June 15, 1956. Decided August 20, 1956. Irving M. Herman, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel; David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel; Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Frederick U. Reel, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. P. Dalton Kennedy, Jr., Charlotte, N.C., for respondent. Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOPER, Circuit Judge, and BARKSDALE, District Judge. PARKER

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co.

    120 F.2d 532 (4th Cir. 1941)   Cited 15 times

    No. 4770. June 10, 1941. On Petition for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Petition by the National Labor Relations Board to enforce its order against the Entwistle Manufacturing Company. Order modified and enforced. Walter B. Wilbur, of Washington, D.C., Atty., National Labor Relations Board (Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Laurence A. Knapp, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Sylvester Garrett, and William Stix, all of Washington, D.C., Attys