§

Road Sprinkler Fitters, Local 669, U.A.(Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.)

357 N.L.R.B. 2140 (N.L.R.B. 2011)
Road Sprinkler Fitters, Local 669, U.A.(Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.)

7 Cited authorities

  1. National Woodwork Manufacturers Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    386 U.S. 612 (1967)   Cited 392 times
    Holding that union employees' refusal to install third-party manufacturer's product was not prohibited under § 158(b)(B), because it was an action "pressuring the [union members'] employer for agreements regulating relations between [the employer] and his own employees"

  2. South Prairie Constr. v. Operating Engineers

    425 U.S. 800 (1976)   Cited 223 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appeals court usurped role of NLRB by reversing Board's legal conclusion and proceeding to decide issue of fact that should be decided by Board in the first instance

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Enterprise Ass'n of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine & General Pipefitters

    429 U.S. 507 (1977)   Cited 140 times
    Stating that if a union were to attempt to capture work it had previously acquiesced to non-union workers' performing, such conduct would serve "not to preserve, but to aggrandize, its own position and that of its members," concluding that "[s]uch activity is squarely within the statute" and thus prohibited

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n

    447 U.S. 490 (1980)   Cited 66 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Longshoremen, 447 U.S. 490 (1980) (ILA I), we reviewed the National Labor Relations Board's conclusion that the Rules and their enforcement constituted unlawful secondary activity under §§ 8(b)(4)(B) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4) (B) and 158(e).

  5. Int. U. of Operating Eng. v. N.L.R.B

    518 F.2d 1040 (D.C. Cir. 1975)   Cited 50 times
    Finding the common management prong satisfied by several interchanges of higher-level managers and officers between the corporations

  6. Kandel v. N.L.R.B

    265 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2008)

    No. 07-1044. January 28, 2008. On Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Glenn Matthew Taubman, William Louis Messenger, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Springfield, VA, for Petitioners. Steven Brian Goldstein, Attorney, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, David S. Habenstreit, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, for Respondent. Before: HENDERSON, RANDOLPH and GARLAND, Circuit Judges. JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This

  7. Joint Council of Teamsters No. 42 v. N.L.R.B

    450 F.2d 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1971)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 24016, 24261. Argued March 2, 1971. Decided September 24, 1971. Mr. Paul Crost, Los Angeles, Cal., of the bar of the Supreme Court of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. Raymond W. Bergan, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioners in No. 24,016 and intervenors in No. 24,261. Mr. George A. Pappy, Los Angeles, Cal., also entered an appearance for petitioners in No. 24,016 and intervenors in No. 24,261. Mr. Carl W. Robertson, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner