The North American Soccer League

18 Cited authorities

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
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 265 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
Brooks v. Labor Board
348 U.S. 96 (1954) Cited 300 times
Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board
Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.
351 U.S. 149 (1956) Cited 223 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith
Pittsburgh Glass Co. v. Board
313 U.S. 146 (1941) Cited 294 times
In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.
Mackey v. National Football League
543 F.2d 606 (8th Cir. 1976) Cited 112 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that league's restrictions on free agency were subject to rule of reason analysis despite restrictions' resemblance to restraints ordinarily constituting per se antitrust violations, such as group boycotts and concerted refusals to deal
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Golden Age Beverage Co.
415 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969) Cited 95 times
In NLRB v. Golden Age Beverage Company, 415 F.2d 26, 30 (5th Cir. 1969), this court apparently considered hearsay evidence at this stage of proceedings to set aside an election.
Reynolds v. Nat'l Football League
584 F.2d 280 (8th Cir. 1978) Cited 68 times
Holding that when there is a choice between (b) and (b) certification, generally it is better to proceed under (b) in order to avoid inconsistent adjudication or a compromise of class interests
Curtiss-Wright, Wright Aero. Div. v. N.L.R.B
347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965) Cited 55 times
Noting the Board has "considerable leeway in amplifying or expanding certain details not specifically set forth in the complaint if they accord with the general substance of the complaint"
Follett Corporation v. N.L.R.B
397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968) Cited 20 times
No. 16221. June 10, 1968. Robert C. Claus, James S. Petrie, John P. Jacoby, Chicago, Ill., Vedder, Price, Kaufman Kammholz, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for petitioners. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, George B. Driesen, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Fred R. Kimmel, Atty., N.L.R.B., for respondent. Before CASTLE, Chief Judge, and SWYGERT and CUMMINGS, Circuit Judges. SWYGERT, Circuit Judge. Follett Corporation

The North American Soccer League

18 Cited authorities

Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

Approving "discovery-type standard"

Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board

Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.

Holding that league's restrictions on free agency were subject to rule of reason analysis despite restrictions' resemblance to restraints ordinarily constituting per se antitrust violations, such as group boycotts and concerted refusals to deal

In NLRB v. Golden Age Beverage Company, 415 F.2d 26, 30 (5th Cir. 1969), this court apparently considered hearsay evidence at this stage of proceedings to set aside an election.

Holding that when there is a choice between (b) and (b) certification, generally it is better to proceed under (b) in order to avoid inconsistent adjudication or a compromise of class interests

Noting the Board has "considerable leeway in amplifying or expanding certain details not specifically set forth in the complaint if they accord with the general substance of the complaint"