Publishers' Association of New York City, et al.

45 Cited authorities

Steelworkers v. Am. Mfg. Co.
363 U.S. 564 (1960) Cited 2,229 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that because the parties bargained for the “arbitrator's judgment,” the underlying “question of contract interpretation” is for the arbitrator, and the courts have “no business weighing the merits of the grievance”
Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills
353 U.S. 448 (1957) Cited 2,323 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 301 expresses a federal policy in favor of the enforceability of labor contracts
Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour Co.
369 U.S. 95 (1962) Cited 1,181 times
Holding that "under the mandate of Lincoln Mills " federal labor law is "paramount" when deciding issues raised under § 301
Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board
350 U.S. 270 (1956) Cited 403 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"
Labor Board v. Insurance Agents
361 U.S. 477 (1960) Cited 324 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"
Labor Board v. Mackay Co.
304 U.S. 333 (1938) Cited 535 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices
Lewis v. Benedict Coal Corp.
361 U.S. 459 (1960) Cited 255 times
Holding that where the fund's governing documents require that it be used for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees, their families, and dependents, "the fund is in no way an asset or property of the union."
Labor Board v. Truck Drivers Union
353 U.S. 87 (1957) Cited 197 times
Discussing congressional debate over the Taft-Hartley amendments of 1947
Labor Board v. Lion Oil Co.
352 U.S. 282 (1957) Cited 139 times
Observing that the court bears "a judicial responsibility to find that interpretation which can most fairly be said to be embedded in the statute, in the sense of being most harmonious with its scheme and with the general purposes that Congress manifested"
Towne v. Eisner
245 U.S. 418 (1918) Cited 408 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Towne v. Eisner it was not contended that any construction of the statute could make it narrower than the constitutional grant; rather the contrary.

Publishers' Association of New York City, et al.

45 Cited authorities

Holding that because the parties bargained for the “arbitrator's judgment,” the underlying “question of contract interpretation” is for the arbitrator, and the courts have “no business weighing the merits of the grievance”

Holding that § 301 expresses a federal policy in favor of the enforceability of labor contracts

Holding that "under the mandate of Lincoln Mills " federal labor law is "paramount" when deciding issues raised under § 301

Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"

Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"

Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices

Holding that where the fund's governing documents require that it be used for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees, their families, and dependents, "the fund is in no way an asset or property of the union."

Discussing congressional debate over the Taft-Hartley amendments of 1947

Observing that the court bears "a judicial responsibility to find that interpretation which can most fairly be said to be embedded in the statute, in the sense of being most harmonious with its scheme and with the general purposes that Congress manifested"

In Towne v. Eisner it was not contended that any construction of the statute could make it narrower than the constitutional grant; rather the contrary.