§

Teamsters Local 70 (Chipman Freight)

283 N.L.R.B. 343 (N.L.R.B. 1987)
Teamsters Local 70 (Chipman Freight)

10 Cited authorities

  1. Electrical Workers v. Labor Board

    341 U.S. 694 (1951)   Cited 246 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prohibition of picketing in furtherance of unlawful objectives is not an abridgement of free speech

  2. Longshoremen v. Allied International, Inc.

    456 U.S. 212 (1982)   Cited 74 times
    Finding foreseeability relevant in determining damages, and rejecting argument that union did not foresee that refusing to handle a shipper's cargo would result in disruption of the shipper's business as facially implausible

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers

    400 U.S. 297 (1971)   Cited 73 times
    Holding that Section 8(b)(B) applied to coercive conduct directed toward secondary employer even where union primarily demanded that employers reassign work

  4. Soft Drink Wkrs. Union Local 812 v. N.L.R.B

    657 F.2d 1252 (D.C. Cir. 1980)   Cited 16 times
    In Soft Drink Workers Local 812 v. NLRB, 657 F.2d 1252 (D.C.Cir. 1980), a union violated section 8(b)(4)(B) by picketing a distributor of nonlocal products to enhance the job opportunities of union members at local plants, id. at 1260; its picketing was thus "tactically calculated to satisfy union objectives elsewhere."

  5. Production Workers U. of Chicago v. N.L.R.B

    793 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1986)   Cited 10 times
    In Production Workers, the Board had found that a union's picketing of taxi companies on behalf of independent contractor drivers was a secondary boycott and was therefore prohibited by section 8(b)(4)(B). The Board reasoned that, even though the picketing was not directed toward a neutral employer, it was prohibited because section 8(b)(4)(B) is an "intentionally broad" provision whose protections do not extend to parties who are not statutory employees.

  6. Local 814, Int. Bro. of Teamsters v. N.L.R.B

    512 F.2d 564 (D.C. Cir. 1975)   Cited 16 times
    Remanding two decisions of the National Labor Relations Board that were "factually similar and ostensibly inconsistent" because the Board "ha[d] not explained its reasons for reaching different results"

  7. Carpet, Linoleum, Soft Tile, Loc. 419 v. NLRB

    467 F.2d 392 (D.C. Cir. 1972)   Cited 14 times

    No. 71-1320. Argued April 19, 1972. Decided July 28, 1972. Mr. David S. Barr, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Philip Hornbein, Jr., Denver, Colo., was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Baruch A. Fellner, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Messrs. Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., were on the brief, for respondent. Mr. Kalvin M. Grove, Chicago, Ill., for intervenor. Mr. Harry L. Browne, Kansas City, Mo., filed a brief on behalf of the American

  8. National Maritime Un. Am., v. N.L.R.B

    346 F.2d 411 (D.C. Cir. 1965)   Cited 13 times

    No. 18789. Argued December 21, 1964. Decided April 15, 1965. Petition for Rehearing Denied May 14, 1965. Mr. Abraham E. Freedman, Philadelphia, Pa., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. A. Fred Freedman, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Lawrence M. Joseph, 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. Arnold

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 85, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

    454 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1972)   Cited 4 times

    No. 25983. January 24, 1972. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Allen H. Feldman, Washington, D.C., and Roy O. Hoffman, Director, NLRB, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Duane B. Beeson, of Brundage, Neyhart, Grodin Beeson, Littler, Mendelson Fastiff, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. Before MERRILL, KOELSCH and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges. KOELSCH, Circuit Judge: Proceeding to enforce an order of

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Union de Empleados de la Industria del Enlatado de Pescado y Ramas Anexas de P. R.

    455 F.2d 1248 (1st Cir. 1972)   Cited 1 times

    No. 71-1295. Argued February 1, 1972. Decided March 3, 1972. Glen M. Bendixsen, Chief of Special Litigation, Washington, D.C., with whom Peter G. Nash, General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Ronald I. Tish, Washington, D.C., Attorney, were on the brief, for petitioner. George L. Weasler, Santurce, P. R., with whom Pedro E. Purcell Ruiz, Santurce, P. R., was on the brief for respondents. Petition from the National Labor Relations Board. Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE