Star Expansion Industries Corp.

48 Cited authorities

Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills
353 U.S. 448 (1957) Cited 2,323 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 301 expresses a federal policy in favor of the enforceability of labor contracts
Republic Steel v. Maddox
379 U.S. 650 (1965) Cited 1,175 times
Holding that an "employee must afford the union the opportunity to act on his behalf
Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour Co.
369 U.S. 95 (1962) Cited 1,181 times
Holding that "under the mandate of Lincoln Mills " federal labor law is "paramount" when deciding issues raised under § 301
Humphrey v. Moore
375 U.S. 335 (1964) Cited 760 times
Holding that the union did not breach its duty of fair representation in negotiating a deal which favored some members of the same bargaining unit over others
Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board
379 U.S. 203 (1964) Cited 731 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA
Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney
368 U.S. 502 (1962) Cited 575 times
Holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over § 301 claims
Trainmen v. Chicago R. I. R. Co.
353 U.S. 30 (1957) Cited 481 times
Holding that employees could not strike to protest minor disputes, because allowing employees to do so would render the RLA's procedures for addressing minor disputes, which call for arbitration, meaningless
Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board
350 U.S. 270 (1956) Cited 403 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson
370 U.S. 195 (1962) Cited 259 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Sinclair the Court invited Congress to act if it should be displeased with the judicial interpretation of the statute.
Labor Board v. American Ins. Co.
343 U.S. 395 (1952) Cited 269 times
Holding the degree of discretion in a CBA "is an issue for determination across the bargaining table, not by the Board"

Star Expansion Industries Corp.

48 Cited authorities

Holding that § 301 expresses a federal policy in favor of the enforceability of labor contracts

Holding that an "employee must afford the union the opportunity to act on his behalf

Holding that "under the mandate of Lincoln Mills " federal labor law is "paramount" when deciding issues raised under § 301

Holding that the union did not breach its duty of fair representation in negotiating a deal which favored some members of the same bargaining unit over others

Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

Holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over § 301 claims

Holding that employees could not strike to protest minor disputes, because allowing employees to do so would render the RLA's procedures for addressing minor disputes, which call for arbitration, meaningless

Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"

In Sinclair the Court invited Congress to act if it should be displeased with the judicial interpretation of the statute.

Holding the degree of discretion in a CBA "is an issue for determination across the bargaining table, not by the Board"