Teamsters (Active Transportation Co.)

4 Cited authorities

  1. National Woodwork Manufacturers Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    386 U.S. 612 (1967)   Cited 392 times
    Holding that union employees' refusal to install third-party manufacturer's product was not prohibited under § 158(b)(B), because it was an action "pressuring the [union members'] employer for agreements regulating relations between [the employer] and his own employees"
  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Enterprise Ass'n of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine & General Pipefitters

    429 U.S. 507 (1977)   Cited 138 times
    Stating that if a union were to attempt to capture work it had previously acquiesced to non-union workers' performing, such conduct would serve "not to preserve, but to aggrandize, its own position and that of its members," concluding that "[s]uch activity is squarely within the statute" and thus prohibited
  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n

    447 U.S. 490 (1980)   Cited 65 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Longshoremen, 447 U.S. 490 (1980) (ILA I), we reviewed the National Labor Relations Board's conclusion that the Rules and their enforcement constituted unlawful secondary activity under §§ 8(b)(4)(B) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4) (B) and 158(e).
  4. Joint Council of Teamsters No. 42 v. N.L.R.B

    450 F.2d 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1971)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 24016, 24261. Argued March 2, 1971. Decided September 24, 1971. Mr. Paul Crost, Los Angeles, Cal., of the bar of the Supreme Court of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. Raymond W. Bergan, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioners in No. 24,016 and intervenors in No. 24,261. Mr. George A. Pappy, Los Angeles, Cal., also entered an appearance for petitioners in No. 24,016 and intervenors in No. 24,261. Mr. Carl W. Robertson, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner