Radiator Specialty Co.

40 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
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
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. 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."
Labor Board v. American Ins. Co.
343 U.S. 395 (1952) Cited 269 times
Holding the degree of discretion in a CBA "is an issue for determination across the bargaining table, not by the Board"
Wallace Corp. v. Labor Board
323 U.S. 248 (1944) Cited 162 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that corporation committed unfair labor practice
Labor Board v. Donnelly Co.
330 U.S. 219 (1947) Cited 128 times
Holding that a hearing examiner's prior adverse ruling did not prevent him from adjudicating the same case on retrial even though the examiner's initial decision had been reversed for improper exclusion of evidence
Labor Board v. Sands Mfg. Co.
306 U.S. 332 (1939) Cited 139 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U.S. 332, 59 S.Ct. 508, 83 L.Ed. 682, affirming the ruling of this Court in 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 721, the Supreme Court held the employer justified in abandoning further negotiations with the Union when conditions showed the uselessness of continuing with them.

Radiator Specialty Co.

40 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 "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

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 the degree of discretion in a CBA "is an issue for determination across the bargaining table, not by the Board"

Holding that corporation committed unfair labor practice

Holding that a hearing examiner's prior adverse ruling did not prevent him from adjudicating the same case on retrial even though the examiner's initial decision had been reversed for improper exclusion of evidence

In N.L.R.B. v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U.S. 332, 59 S.Ct. 508, 83 L.Ed. 682, affirming the ruling of this Court in 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 721, the Supreme Court held the employer justified in abandoning further negotiations with the Union when conditions showed the uselessness of continuing with them.