§

Teamsters Local 670 (Stayton Canning)

275 N.L.R.B. 911 (N.L.R.B. 1985)
Teamsters Local 670 (Stayton Canning)

11 Cited authorities

  1. Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass

    404 U.S. 157 (1971)   Cited 630 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit

  2. Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board

    379 U.S. 203 (1964)   Cited 731 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.

    388 U.S. 175 (1967)   Cited 334 times
    Holding that majority rule concept is at the center of federal labor policy

  4. Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.

    356 U.S. 342 (1958)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."

  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. Scofield v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    394 U.S. 423 (1969)   Cited 117 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding union rule, enforceable by fines and expulsion, imposing limitation on immediate pay that members could receive for piecework because Court found no "impairment of statutory labor policy"

  7. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel v. N.L.R.B

    618 F.2d 1009 (3d Cir. 1980)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 79-1568. Argued February 11, 1980. Decided April 14, 1980. Donald L. Dotson (argued), Francis P. Massco, Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner. Candace M. Carroll (argued), Norton J. Come, Acting Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before ADAMS, VAN DUSEN and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

  8. Associated Home Bldr. of G. E. Bay v. N.L.R.B

    352 F.2d 745 (9th Cir. 1965)   Cited 13 times
    In Associated an association of builders claimed that a union's imposition of fines upon its members for exceeding a unilaterally imposed production quota violated the union members' section 7 rights and was therefore a section 8(b)(1)(A) unfair labor practice.

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Communications Wkrs. of Amer

    474 F.2d 778 (2d Cir. 1972)   Cited 4 times

    No. 69, Docket 72-1298. Argued October 17, 1972. Decided December 21, 1972. Joseph C. Thackery, Atty., NLRB, Washington, D.C. (Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Robert A. Giannasi, Atty., NLRB, Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. Eugene D. Ulterino, Rochester, N.Y. (Nixon, Hargrave, Devans Doyle, Rochester, N.Y., on brief), for intervenor. Richard Lipsitz, Buffalo, N.Y. (Lawrence A. Schulz and Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Schuller James, Buffalo

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Truck Drivers, Etc., L. U. No. 100

    526 F.2d 731 (6th Cir. 1975)

    No. 75-1194. Argued October 14, 1975. Decided December 11, 1975. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Alan Banov, Washington, D.C., Emil C. Farkas, Director, Region 9, N.L.R.B., Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner. Jonas B. Katz, Gettler Katz, Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondents. Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, McCREE, Circuit Judge, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge. McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge. This case is before the Court upon the application of the National Labor Relations