Penn Industries, Inc.

29 Cited authorities

Vaca v. Sipes
386 U.S. 171 (1967) Cited 4,209 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"
Humphrey v. Moore
375 U.S. 335 (1964) Cited 760 times
Holding that the union did not breach its duty of fair representation in negotiating a deal which favored some members of the same bargaining unit over others
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman
345 U.S. 330 (1953) Cited 881 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
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
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.
388 U.S. 26 (1967) Cited 322 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
Mitchell v. Tribune Company
342 U.S. 919 (1952) Cited 90 times
Employing the "target area" approach
Ruzicka v. General Motors Corporation
523 F.2d 306 (6th Cir. 1975) Cited 115 times
Finding 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.”
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
Jas. H. Matthews Co. v. N.L.R.B
354 F.2d 432 (8th Cir. 1966) Cited 54 times
In James H. Matthews Co., supra, the employee in question signed an authorization card. Later the union received a letter, postmarked 11 days after the effective date for determining majority status of the union, requesting return of the employee's authorization card. Allegedly, the letter was neither written, dated, nor addressed by the employee and was originally left with an undisclosed person.
Amalgamated Local Union 355 v. N.L.R.B
481 F.2d 996 (2d Cir. 1973) Cited 27 times
Nos. 703-705, Docket 72-1926, 72-2224, 72-2315. Argued February 14, 1973. Decided July 9, 1973. Harold Dublirer, New York City (Dublirer, Haydon Straci, New York City, of counsel), for Amalgamated Local Union 355. Leonard Leibowitz, New York City (Richard Dorn, and Sipser, Weinstock, Harper Dorn, New York City, of counsel), for Local 259, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. Douglas S. McDowell, Washington, D.C. (Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,092 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

Penn Industries, Inc.

29 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 the union did not breach its duty of fair representation in negotiating a deal which favored some members of the same bargaining unit over others

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

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

Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

Employing the "target area" approach

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"