Teamsters Local 631 (Vosburg Equipment)

7 Cited authorities

  1. Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers

    493 U.S. 67 (1989)   Cited 301 times
    Holding that failure of union to refer plaintiff for employment was not cognizable under the LMRDA because it did not involve "discipline"
  2. Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman

    345 U.S. 330 (1953)   Cited 881 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union acting in its representative capacity owes a duty of fair representation to those on whose behalf it acts
  3. Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.

    369 U.S. 404 (1962)   Cited 298 times
    Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"
  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.

    360 U.S. 301 (1959)   Cited 106 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred
  5. Lucas v. N.L.R.B

    333 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 13 times
    Defining substantial evidence
  6. Jacoby v. N.L.R.B

    325 F.3d 301 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 10 times
    Stating that unions have a duty to use “ ‘objective criteria’ and ‘consistent standards' ” in the operation of hiring-halls
  7. Jacoby v. N.L.R.B

    233 F.3d 611 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Jacoby, the D.C. Circuit reiterated the reasoning it articulated in Plumbers Pipe Fitters in holding that the duty of fair representation also precludes departures from established exclusive hiring hall procedures and that the Board had articulated an erroneous view of the law in concluding that the duty of fair representation did not apply when such departures were caused by union negligence. 233 F.3d at 616-17.