Oregon Teamsters' Security Plan Office

64 Cited authorities

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"
Labor Board v. Seven-Up Co.
344 U.S. 344 (1953) Cited 368 times
Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding
Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co.
311 U.S. 584 (1941) Cited 338 times
Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"
Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
321 U.S. 678 (1944) Cited 269 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8
Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board
321 U.S. 702 (1944) Cited 252 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.
United Mine Workers v. Coronado Co.
259 U.S. 344 (1922) Cited 411 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that labor union could be sued for antitrust violations and describing the "affirmative legal recognition of their existence and usefulness and provisions for their protection"
Polish Alliance v. Labor Board
322 U.S. 643 (1944) Cited 138 times
In Polish National Alliance v. NLRB, 322 U.S. 643, 64 S.Ct. 1196, 88 L.Ed. 1509 (1944), the Court held that the National Labor Relations Act applied to a fraternal organization providing death, disability and accident benefits to its members and their beneficiaries.
Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board
185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950) Cited 162 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Joy Silk the Court held that when an employer could have no doubt as to the majority status or when an employer refuses recognition of a union "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the union's majority, the refusal is no longer justifiable and constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain set forth in section 8(a)(5) of the Act".
Howell Chev. Co. v. Labor Board
346 U.S. 482 (1953) Cited 38 times
Holding that a car retailer is subject to Commerce Clause as an "'integral part' of General Motors' national system of distribution."
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.

Oregon Teamsters' Security Plan Office

64 Cited authorities

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding

Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"

Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

Holding that labor union could be sued for antitrust violations and describing the "affirmative legal recognition of their existence and usefulness and provisions for their protection"

In Polish National Alliance v. NLRB, 322 U.S. 643, 64 S.Ct. 1196, 88 L.Ed. 1509 (1944), the Court held that the National Labor Relations Act applied to a fraternal organization providing death, disability and accident benefits to its members and their beneficiaries.

Holding that a car retailer is subject to Commerce Clause as an "'integral part' of General Motors' national system of distribution."

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.