§

Service Employees Local 87 (Trinity Maintenance)

312 N.L.R.B. 715 (N.L.R.B. 1993)
Service Employees Local 87 (Trinity Maintenance)

7 Cited authorities

  1. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Trades Council

    485 U.S. 568 (1988)   Cited 729 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union’s distribution of handbills at the entrances of a shopping mall was not threatening, coercing, or restraining within meaning of section 8(b) because there had been "no violence, picketing, or patrolling," and "no suggestion that the leaflets had any coercive effect on customers of the mall"

  2. Labor Board v. Denver Bldg. Council

    341 U.S. 675 (1951)   Cited 494 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming Board's assertion of jurisdiction over activities taking place at local construction site based on finding that "any widespread application of the practices charged might well result in substantially decreasing" the flow of interstate commerce

  3. Electrical Workers v. Labor Board

    366 U.S. 667 (1961)   Cited 186 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union may picket a secondary employer only when the primary employer is at the job site

  4. Carpenters' Union v. Labor Board

    357 U.S. 93 (1958)   Cited 201 times
    Rejecting Government position that we should defer to the Board's interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act

  5. Bakery & Pastry Drivers & Helpers Local 802 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Wohl

    315 U.S. 769 (1942)   Cited 236 times
    Reversing an injunction against peaceful picketing

  6. Allbritton Communications Co. v. N.L.R.B

    766 F.2d 812 (3d Cir. 1985)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that "removal proceedings are in the nature of process, and defects in the removal procedures are waivable"

  7. Intern. Ass'n of Bridge, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    598 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1979)   Cited 17 times
    Enforcing Board's order finding unlawful inducement in part based on conversations at neutral employer's office gate between union agent and neutral employees who failed to report for work later that day, even though there was no testimony regarding the content of the conversations