St. Clare's Hospital

12 Cited authorities

Vaca v. Sipes
386 U.S. 171 (1967) Cited 4,209 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, under the LMRA, an "individual employee has absolute right to have his grievance taken to arbitration regardless of the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement"
San Diego Unions v. Garmon
359 U.S. 236 (1959) Cited 2,558 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"
Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge
403 U.S. 274 (1971) Cited 824 times
Holding wrongful discharge action brought in state court precluded by pervasiveness of federal regulation in the area
Farmer v. Carpenters
430 U.S. 290 (1977) Cited 607 times
Holding that an otherwise preempted claim could be prosecuted in state or federal court if the conduct alleged was sufficiently outrageous
Machinists v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm'n
427 U.S. 132 (1976) Cited 465 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law is preempted where it would upset the congressionally defined balance of power between management and labor by regulating activity Congress deliberately left unregulated
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nash-Finch Co.
404 U.S. 138 (1971) Cited 163 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that board's attempt to "enjoin" or "restrain" state court injunction fell within exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2283, which forbids court from granting "an injunction to stay" such proceedings unless otherwise authorized
Bethlehem Co. v. State Board
330 U.S. 767 (1947) Cited 255 times
Holding federal nonregulation was not an "administrative concession that the nature of these appellants’ business put" the particular subject matter "beyond reach of federal authority"
Colorado Comm'n v. Continental
372 U.S. 714 (1963) Cited 144 times
Holding state law racial discrimination claim not barred by RLA
Hanna Mining v. Marine Engineers
382 U.S. 181 (1965) Cited 71 times
Holding that "the Board's statement [that the engineers were supervisors and thus not subject to the NLRA] does resolve the question with the clarity necessary to avoid preemption"
N.L.R.B. v. Committee of Interns and Residents
426 F. Supp. 438 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) Cited 3 times
No. 76 Civ. 5119. January 31, 1977. Carl Taylor, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., Edwin H. Bennett, Regional Atty., New York City, for plaintiff N.L.R.B. Murray A. Gordon, Mark Kreitman, New York City, for defendant Committee of Interns and Residents. Norbert M. Phillipps, Gen. Counsel, New York City, for defendant New York State Labor Relations Bd. Gerald A. Bodner, Mark A. Chertok, New York City, for Albert Einstein College of Medicine, amicus curiae. Carl W. Vogt, Jay Counts, Fulbright Jaworski
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,092 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

St. Clare's Hospital

12 Cited authorities

Holding that, under the LMRA, an "individual employee has absolute right to have his grievance taken to arbitration regardless of the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement"

Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"

Holding wrongful discharge action brought in state court precluded by pervasiveness of federal regulation in the area

Holding that an otherwise preempted claim could be prosecuted in state or federal court if the conduct alleged was sufficiently outrageous

Holding that state law is preempted where it would upset the congressionally defined balance of power between management and labor by regulating activity Congress deliberately left unregulated

Holding that board's attempt to "enjoin" or "restrain" state court injunction fell within exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2283, which forbids court from granting "an injunction to stay" such proceedings unless otherwise authorized

Holding federal nonregulation was not an "administrative concession that the nature of these appellants’ business put" the particular subject matter "beyond reach of federal authority"

Holding state law racial discrimination claim not barred by RLA

Holding that "the Board's statement [that the engineers were supervisors and thus not subject to the NLRA] does resolve the question with the clarity necessary to avoid preemption"

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"