St. Joe Paper Co.

16 Cited authorities

Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (1957) Cited 59,260 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"
Steele v. L. N.R. Co.
323 U.S. 192 (1944) Cited 959 times
Holding that a labor organization must represent all members of a "craft or class of employees . . . regardless of their union affiliations or want of them"
Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 470 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co.
311 U.S. 584 (1941) Cited 338 times
Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"
Syres v. Oil Workers Int'l Union, Local No. 23
223 F.2d 739 (5th Cir. 1955) Cited 52 times
No. 15286. June 21, 1955. Rehearing Denied August 5, 1955. Roberson L. King, Houston, Tex., William E. Rentfro, Denver, Colo., Dent, Ford, King Wickliff, Houston, Tex., Lindsay P. Walden, General Counsel, Denver, Colo., for appellants. Quentin Keith, Beaumont, Tex., Joseph H. Sperry, Chris Dixie, John E. Bailey, William F. Erwin, Jr., Houston, Tex., Eldon Young, Houston, Tex., Russell G. Connolly, Pittsburgh, Pa., David Proctor, Archie D. Gray, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for appellees. Before RIVES
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bell Aircraft Corp.
206 F.2d 235 (2d Cir. 1953) Cited 38 times
In Bell, the employee was promoted voluntarily, while in Golden Bottle and Oil, Chemical, the position from which the employee was discharged became supervisory after the discharge.
N.L.R.B. v. Putnam Tool Company
290 F.2d 663 (6th Cir. 1961) Cited 11 times
No. 14395. June 2, 1961. Rosanna A. Blake, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner, Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Vincent W. Bradley, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief. Elisha Hanson, Washington, D.C., for respondent, Martin J. Ewald, Detroit, Mich., Emmett E. Tucker, Jr., Washington, D.C., on the brief. Before CECIL, WEICK and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. WEICK, Circuit Judge. This case is
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hudson Motor Car
128 F.2d 528 (6th Cir. 1942) Cited 29 times
In National Labor Relations Board v. Hudson Motor Car Co., 6 Cir., 128 F.2d 528, 533, it was stated: "We think it right and just to say that so far as the record shows, respondent has not wilfully violated the provisions of the Act, but the intent of the employer is not within the ambit of our power of review.
Eastern Coal Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
176 F.2d 131 (4th Cir. 1949) Cited 20 times
No. 5822. Argued April 13, 1949. Decided June 13, 1949. Petition by Eastern Coal Corporation to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board. Petition denied and order enforced. William A. Stuart, Abingdon, Va. (George Richardson, Jr., Bluefield, W. Va., on the brief), for petitioner. William J. Avrutis and Frederick U. Reel, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, and A. Norman Somers, Assistant General Counsel
National L. Rel. Bd. v. Imparato Stevedoring
250 F.2d 297 (3d Cir. 1957) Cited 9 times
No. 12193. Argued October 10, 1957. Decided December 3, 1957. Stephen Leonard, Washington, D.C. (Jerome D. Fenton, General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, Louis Schwartz, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Nicholas LaCarrubba, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent. Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and MARIS and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges. McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board having found
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"
Section 401 - Congressional declaration of findings, purposes, and policy
29 U.S.C. § 401 Cited 1,042 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that the LMRDA was essential to "afford necessary protection of the rights and interests of employees and the public generally as they relate to the activities of labor organizations . . ."

St. Joe Paper Co.

16 Cited authorities

Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

Holding that a labor organization must represent all members of a "craft or class of employees . . . regardless of their union affiliations or want of them"

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"

In Bell, the employee was promoted voluntarily, while in Golden Bottle and Oil, Chemical, the position from which the employee was discharged became supervisory after the discharge.

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"

Finding that the LMRDA was essential to "afford necessary protection of the rights and interests of employees and the public generally as they relate to the activities of labor organizations . . ."