§

Teamsters Local 443 (Connecticut Limousine Service, Inc.)

324 N.L.R.B. 633 (N.L.R.B. 1997)
Teamsters Local 443 (Connecticut Limousine Service, Inc.)

13 Cited authorities

  1. Teachers v. Hudson

    475 U.S. 292 (1986)   Cited 408 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the First Amendment restrains government-compelled exactions of money

  2. Ellis v. Railway Clerks

    466 U.S. 435 (1984)   Cited 386 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that union conventions, social activities, and publications were chargeable so long as they did not relate to political causes

  3. Communications Workers of America v. Beck

    487 U.S. 735 (1988)   Cited 277 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-members could not be charged "to support union activities beyond those germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment"

  4. Lechmere, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    502 U.S. 527 (1992)   Cited 156 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent

  5. Labor Board v. General Motors

    373 U.S. 734 (1963)   Cited 190 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that termination is also the appropriate sanction for failure to pay fees under an agency-shop clause

  6. Pattern Makers' League v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    473 U.S. 95 (1985)   Cited 76 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Upholding the NLRB's interpretation of the Act

  7. Gilpin v. Afscme, Afl-Cio

    875 F.2d 1310 (7th Cir. 1989)   Cited 77 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that nonunion employees' claim for restitution was actually for punitive damages when the union had acted lawfully by conferring benefits to the employees

  8. Tierney v. City of Toledo

    824 F.2d 1497 (6th Cir. 1987)   Cited 78 times
    In Tierney v. City of Toledo, 824 F.2d 1497 (6th Cir. 1987), the court noted that "[procedures... must afford dissenting non-members a reasonable time to voice their objections and must not be framed so as to discourage the exercise of their First Amendment rights by intimidation or the imposition of unrealistic and excessively complex procedural requirements."

  9. Abrams v. Communications Workers of America

    59 F.3d 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 30 times
    Finding that thirty-day window period for objecting to fees was not unduly burdensome

  10. Ellis v. Broth. of Ry., Air. S. S. Clerks

    685 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 41 times

    Nos. 80-5562, 80-5603. Argued November 2, 1981. Decided February 22, 1982. Decided September 3, 1982. Michael E. Merrill, San Diego, Cal., for Ellis et al. Joseph Rauh, Laurence Gold, Washington, D.C., argued, for Broth. of Railway, et al.; Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Rauh, Silard Lichtman, Washington, D.C., William J. Donlon, Rockville, Md., on brief. Marsha S. Berzon, San Francisco, Cal., J. Albert Woll, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern