§

Raymond O. Lewis, Et Al., Agents (U.M.W.)

148 N.L.R.B. 249 (N.L.R.B. 1964)
Raymond O. Lewis, Et Al., Agents (U.M.W.)

11 Cited authorities

  1. Teamsters Local v. Labor Board

    365 U.S. 667 (1961)   Cited 174 times
    Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria

  2. Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co.

    365 U.S. 695 (1961)   Cited 22 times
    In NLRB v. News Syndicate Co., 365 U.S. 695, 81 S.Ct. 849, 6 L.Ed.2d 29 (1961), where the bargaining unit included supervisors, the NLRB had found that both the employer and the union had committed unfair labor practices by operating an unlawful closed shop and preferential hiring system.

  3. Truck Dvrs. Un. L. No. 413, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    334 F.2d 539 (D.C. Cir. 1964)   Cited 56 times

    Nos. 17662, 17663. Argued October 30, 1963. Decided April 9, 1964. Certiorari Denied November 16, 1964. See 85 S.Ct. 264. Mr. David Previant, Milwaukee, Wis., with whom Messrs. Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D.C., and L.N.D. Wells, Jr., Dallas, Tex., were on the brief, for petitioners in No. 17,662. Mr. L.N.D. Wells, Jr., Dallas, Tex., with whom Messrs. David Previant, Milwaukee, Wis., and Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for petitioners in No. 17,663. Mr. Gary Green, Atty

  4. Orange Belt Dist. Coun. of Ptrs. v. N.L.R.B

    328 F.2d 534 (D.C. Cir. 1964)   Cited 56 times

    No. 17388. Argued November 6, 1963. Decided January 30, 1964. Mr. Herbert M. Ansell, Washington, D.C., of the bar of the Supreme Court of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, for petitioners. Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for petitioners. Mr. David Barr, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for petitioners. Mr. Hans J. Lehmann, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board

  5. Meat Hwy. Dri., Dockmen, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    335 F.2d 709 (D.C. Cir. 1964)   Cited 44 times
    Subcontracting in cases of lack of equipment to companies employing members of same local whenever possible

  6. District No. 9 v. N.L.R.B

    315 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1962)   Cited 24 times

    No. 16901. Argued September 27, 1962. Decided November 15, 1962. Mr. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Plato E. Papps, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Melvin J. Welles, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations

  7. N.L.R.B. v. AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AM

    309 F.2d 31 (9th Cir. 1962)   Cited 19 times
    In NLRB v. Amalgamated Lithographers of America, 309 F.2d 31, 51 LRRM 2093 (9th Cir. 1962), cert. denied 372 U.S. 943, 82 S.Ct. 936, 9 L.Ed.2d 968 (1963), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a union committed an unfair labor practice in refusing to bargain in good faith when the union insisted upon the inclusion of an illegal contract provision.

  8. Bakery Wagon Drivers, No. 484 v. N.L.R.B

    321 F.2d 353 (D.C. Cir. 1963)   Cited 18 times

    No. 17200. Argued March 20, 1963. Decided May 23, 1963. Mr. Duane B. Beeson, San Francisco, Cal., of the bar of the Supreme Court of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Hans J. Lehmann, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., were on the brief, for respondent. Before DANAHER

  9. Building Constr. Trades Coun. v. N.L.R.B

    328 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1964)   Cited 17 times
    In Building ConstructionTrades Council, supra, the same panel as in Orange Belt I made explicit that union signatory clauses — those requiring general contractors to use subcontractors who are "signatory to the agreements of the various construction local unions" — by their terms have a secondary focus, and that attempts to secure their enforcement by strikes come within the proscription of section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). That is precisely the situation we have here.

  10. Timm v. Gilliland

    53 Wn. 2d 432 (Wash. 1959)   Cited 9 times

    No. 34726. January 15, 1959. APPEAL AND ERROR — BRIEFS — SETTING OUT FINDINGS — NECESSITY. The findings as made by the trial court must be accepted upon appeal as the established facts of the case, where the findings claimed erroneous are not set out verbatim in the appellants' brief. (Rule on Appeal 43.) SAME. Appellants could not escape the effect of Rule on Appeal 43, providing that findings of fact claimed to be erroneous must be set out verbatim in their brief, upon the theory that portions