§

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers

120 N.L.R.B. 1161 (N.L.R.B. 1958)
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers

9 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Denver Bldg. Council

    341 U.S. 675 (1951)   Cited 494 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming Board's assertion of jurisdiction over activities taking place at local construction site based on finding that "any widespread application of the practices charged might well result in substantially decreasing" the flow of interstate commerce

  2. Electrical Workers v. Labor Board

    341 U.S. 694 (1951)   Cited 247 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prohibition of picketing in furtherance of unlawful objectives is not an abridgement of free speech

  3. Labor Board v. Rice Milling Co.

    341 U.S. 665 (1951)   Cited 126 times
    Noting that section 8(b) was intended to preserve "the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes"

  4. Sales Drivers, Etc. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    229 F.2d 514 (D.C. Cir. 1955)   Cited 24 times
    Noting that "the fact of concerted activity at a common situs where one not common was available" does not itself establish a secondary boycott violation

  5. Truck Drivers Helpers v. N.L.R.B

    249 F.2d 512 (D.C. Cir. 1957)   Cited 18 times

    No. 13651. Argued September 10, 1957. Decided October 28, 1957. Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. Norton J. Come, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Stephen Leonard, Associate General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, were on the brief, for respondent. Before PRETTYMAN, BAZELON and FAHY, Circuit Judges. FAHY, Circuit Judge. This is a sequel to Sales Drivers

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 50

    245 F.2d 542 (2d Cir. 1957)   Cited 18 times

    No. 241, Docket 24293. Argued February 15, 1957. Decided May 23, 1957. Theophil C. Kammholz, General Counsel, Stephen Leonard, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Norton J. Come, Franklin C. Milliken, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Howard N. Meyer, O'Dwyer Bernstien, New York City, for respondent. Before HINCKS, LUMBARD and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges. LUMBARD, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order directing the

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Natl. Motor B. Co.

    105 F.2d 652 (9th Cir. 1939)   Cited 39 times

    No. 8869. June 2, 1939. As Amended June 15, 1939. On Petition for the Enforcement of, and on Petition to Review and Set Aside, an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Proceeding by the National Labor Relations Board, petitioner, against the National Motor Bearing Company, for enforcement of an order issued by the Board, consolidated with a proceeding by the International Association of Machinists and Production Workers, Local 1518, affiliated with International Association of Machinists,

  8. Brewery Wkrs. L. Un. No. 67 v. N.L.R.B

    220 F.2d 380 (D.C. Cir. 1955)   Cited 13 times

    Nos. 12115, 12207. Argued December 3, 1954. Decided March 10, 1955. Mr. Martin F. O'Donoghue, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Thomas X. Dunn, William J. Walsh and Patrick C. O'Donoghue, Washington, D.C., were on the briefs, for petitioner in No. 12,115. Mr. Earle K. Shawe and Mr. William J. Rosenthal, a member of the bar of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, Baltimore, Md., pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. Allan Kamerow, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for Washington

  9. National Lbr. Rel. Bd. v. Piqua M. W. Prod

    109 F.2d 552 (6th Cir. 1940)   Cited 29 times
    In N. L. R. B. v. Piqua Munising Wood Products Co., 109 F.2d 552, 557, the United States Circuit Court said: "All that is requisite in a valid complaint before the Board is that there be a plain statement of the things claimed to constitute an unfair labor practice that respondent may be put upon his defense."