§

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Loc. 386

172 N.L.R.B. 1037 (N.L.R.B. 1968)
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Loc. 386

9 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. 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

  3. Houston Insulation Contractors Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    386 U.S. 664 (1967)   Cited 29 times
    In Houston Insulation Contractors' Ass'n v. NLRB, 386 U.S. 664, 87 S.Ct. 1278, 18 L.Ed.2d 389 (1967), the Court, relying largely on the reasoning in National Woodwork, held that a work preservation agreement between a company and a local union could be effectuated by another local of the same union.

  4. Truck Dvrs. Un. L. No. 413, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    334 F.2d 539 (D.C. Cir. 1964)   Cited 56 times

    Nos. 17662, 17663. Argued October 30, 1963. Decided April 9, 1964. Certiorari Denied November 16, 1964. See 85 S.Ct. 264. Mr. David Previant, Milwaukee, Wis., with whom Messrs. Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D.C., and L.N.D. Wells, Jr., Dallas, Tex., were on the brief, for petitioners in No. 17,662. Mr. L.N.D. Wells, Jr., Dallas, Tex., with whom Messrs. David Previant, Milwaukee, Wis., and Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for petitioners in No. 17,663. Mr. Gary Green, Atty

  5. Meat Hwy. Dri., Dockmen, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    335 F.2d 709 (D.C. Cir. 1964)   Cited 44 times
    Subcontracting in cases of lack of equipment to companies employing members of same local whenever possible

  6. A. DUIE PYLE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR REL. BD

    383 F.2d 772 (3d Cir. 1967)   Cited 28 times
    In A. Duie Pyle we noted that it is "undesirable to determine the conscious objective of a union in obtaining the inclusion of a challenged provision... on a bare stipulation of facts."

  7. Retail Clerks Union Local 770 v. N.L.R.B

    296 F.2d 368 (D.C. Cir. 1961)   Cited 26 times

    No. 15862. Argued March 2, 1961. Decided July 6, 1961. Petition for Rehearing Denied August 23, 1961. Mr. Tim L. Bornstein, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. S.G. Lippman, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Melvin J. Welles, Washington, D.C., of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Mr. Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., and Mr. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen

  8. District No. 9 v. N.L.R.B

    315 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1962)   Cited 24 times

    No. 16901. Argued September 27, 1962. Decided November 15, 1962. Mr. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Plato E. Papps, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Melvin J. Welles, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations

  9. Building Constr. Trades Coun. v. N.L.R.B

    328 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1964)   Cited 17 times
    In Building ConstructionTrades Council, supra, the same panel as in Orange Belt I made explicit that union signatory clauses — those requiring general contractors to use subcontractors who are "signatory to the agreements of the various construction local unions" — by their terms have a secondary focus, and that attempts to secure their enforcement by strikes come within the proscription of section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). That is precisely the situation we have here.