Service & Maintanance Employees' Union, No. 399

17 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp.
373 U.S. 221 (1963) Cited 358 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader
310 U.S. 469 (1940) Cited 532 times
Holding that violent union take over of factory did not implicate antitrust laws
Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.
351 U.S. 105 (1956) Cited 294 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot
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
Labor Board v. Truck Drivers Union
353 U.S. 87 (1957) Cited 197 times
Discussing congressional debate over the Taft-Hartley amendments of 1947
Southport Pet., Co. v. N.L.R.B
315 U.S. 100 (1942) Cited 187 times
Ruling that dissolution of company and transfer of assets did not prevent enforcement of a Board order
Rabouin v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
195 F.2d 906 (2d Cir. 1952) Cited 75 times
In Rabouin v. N.L.R.B., 195 F.2d 906 (2nd Cir., 1962), Justice Clark, then a Circuit Judge, specifically held that a union's demand for damages equal in amount to the wages paid a non-union driver was not an attempted exaction in violation of § 8(b)(6).
Retail Clerks Union Local 770 v. N.L.R.B
296 F.2d 368 (D.C. Cir. 1961) Cited 26 times
No. 15862. Argued March 2, 1961. Decided July 6, 1961. Petition for Rehearing Denied August 23, 1961. Mr. Tim L. Bornstein, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. S.G. Lippman, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Melvin J. Welles, Washington, D.C., of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Mr. Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., and Mr. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen
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

Service & Maintanance Employees' Union, No. 399

17 Cited authorities

Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

Holding that violent union take over of factory did not implicate antitrust laws

Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot

Rejecting Government position that we should defer to the Board's interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act

Discussing congressional debate over the Taft-Hartley amendments of 1947

Ruling that dissolution of company and transfer of assets did not prevent enforcement of a Board order

In Rabouin v. N.L.R.B., 195 F.2d 906 (2nd Cir., 1962), Justice Clark, then a Circuit Judge, specifically held that a union's demand for damages equal in amount to the wages paid a non-union driver was not an attempted exaction in violation of § 8(b)(6).