9 Cited authorities
Vaca v. Sipes
386 U.S. 171 (1967) Cited 4,217 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community Organization
420 U.S. 50 (1975) Cited 125 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that wildcat strikers are bargaining separately and are therefore not protected by the NLRA
De Arroyo v. Sindicato De Trabajadores Packinghouse
425 F.2d 281 (1st Cir. 1970) Cited 155 timesUpholding breach of duty of fair representation verdict because, in part, union failed to properly calculate plaintiffs' seniority when processing grievance
Ruzicka v. General Motors Corporation
523 F.2d 306 (6th Cir. 1975) Cited 115 timesFinding inexplicable delay in pursuing grievances to be a breach of the DFR and stating, “The requirement of exhaustion of intra-Union remedies is bottomed on the hope that such procedures will quickly resolve disputes without the delay inherent in the judicial process and with the aid of persons experienced at resolving member-union conflicts short of a full-blown judicial proceeding. When that hope has failed, however, the member is not barred from proceeding to federal court with a claim of unfair representation.”
International Bro. of Teamsters, Etc. v. U.S.
275 F.2d 610 (4th Cir. 1960) Cited 31 timesIn International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 275 F.2d 610 (4th Cir.) cert. denied, 362 U.S. 975, 80 S.Ct. 1060, 4 L.Ed.2d 1011 (1960), the Fourth Circuit looked to the IBT Constitution and determined that an officer of a local was an agent of the International IBT. That court examined the IBT's Constitutional provisions regarding membership, internal affairs of locals, external affairs of locals, and the right to exercise direct control, and taken together found they "showed such extensive control and direction of the local as to warrant the conclusion that the local is a component of the International."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd.
419 F.2d 216 (9th Cir. 1969) Cited 16 timesIn Tanner Motor Livery, supra, this court stated that the mutual aid clause of § 7 protects concerted activities, which have to do with terms and conditions of employment.
Western Addition Community Org. v. N.L.R.B
485 F.2d 917 (D.C. Cir. 1973) Cited 8 timesIn Western Addition the court confronted the need to reconcile § 7 protection of "concerted activity" (even by a minority of employees) with the principle of union exclusive representation embodied in § 8 of the Act; and the court, in light of the policies rooted in Title VII, held minority action protesting racially discriminatory treatment protected by § 7.
National Labor Relations Bd. v. Nettleton Co.
241 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1957) Cited 15 timesNo. 113, Docket 24181. Argued December 11, 1956. Decided January 21, 1957. Theophil C. Kammholz, General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Owsley Vose and Rosanna A. Blake, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Bond, Schoeneck King, Syracuse, N.Y., Tracy H. Ferguson, Syracuse, N.Y., of counsel, for respondents. Before SWAN, MEDINA and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges. SWAN, Circuit Judge. The Board's Decision and Order is reported in 108 N.L.R.B. 1670. It finds that the respondents have violated
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co.
120 F.2d 532 (4th Cir. 1941) Cited 15 timesNo. 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