The Orgon

11 Cited authorities

National Woodwork Manufacturers Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
386 U.S. 612 (1967) Cited 392 times
Holding that union employees' refusal to install third-party manufacturer's product was not prohibited under § 158(b)(B), because it was an action "pressuring the [union members'] employer for agreements regulating relations between [the employer] and his own employees"
Connell Co. v. Plumbers Steamfitters
421 U.S. 616 (1975) Cited 287 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an agreement between a union and a nonlabor party, which is wholly-unrelated to any collective-bargaining effort on the part of the union and which operates or threatens to operate as a restraint on trade, may be the basis for a federal antitrust suit
Califano v. Jobst
434 U.S. 47 (1977) Cited 257 times
Holding no substantial interference with the plaintiff's right to marry where the government terminated a disabled dependent child's Social Security benefits after plaintiff married someone ineligible for benefits
Carpenters' Union v. Labor Board
357 U.S. 93 (1958) Cited 201 times
Rejecting Government position that we should defer to the Board's interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act
Federal Maritime Commission v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n
435 U.S. 40 (1978) Cited 25 times
In FMC v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n, 435 U.S. 40, 98 S.Ct. 927, 55 L.Ed.2d 96 (1978), the Supreme Court cited these guidelines with approval.
N.L.R.B. v. Int'l Bro. of Elec. Wkrs
405 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. 1968) Cited 25 times
In NLRB v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 405 F.2d at 162, this court held that only that part of a contract that exceeds the limits of the construction industry provision is negated.
Local U. of Sheet Metal Wkrs. Int. v. Hardy
332 F.2d 682 (5th Cir. 1964) Cited 19 times
No. 20759. June 12, 1964. Rehearing Denied July 23, 1964. Jerome A. Cooper, Birmingham, Ala., Donald W. Fisher, Toledo, Ohio, Mulholland, Hickey Lyman, Toledo, Ohio, Cooper, Mitch Crawford, Birmingham, Ala., of counsel, for appellant. Louis Sherman, Washington, D.C., amicus curiae. M.L. Taliaferro, C.V. Stelzenmuller, Birmingham, Ala., Moore, Thomas, Taliaferro, Forman Burr, Birmingham, Ala., of counsel, for appellee. Before BELL, Circuit Judge, and INGRAHAM, District Judge. Judge CAMERON, the third
Pacific Maritime Ass'n v. Fed. Maritime Com'n
543 F.2d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1976) Cited 5 times
Nothing that the pre-implementation filing and approval requirements of section 15, if applied to collective bargaining agreements, "make nearly impossible the maintenance or prompt restoration of industrial peace"
Local No. 636, Etc. v. N.L.R.B
278 F.2d 858 (D.C. Cir. 1960) Cited 16 times
No. 15012. Argued February 8, 1960. Decided March 31, 1960. Mr. Martin F. O'Donoghue, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Thomas X. Dunn and Patrick C. O'Donoghue, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for petitioners. Mr. Norton J. Come, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, were on the brief, for respondent
N.L.R.B. v. Muskegon Bricklayers Union No. 5
378 F.2d 859 (6th Cir. 1967) Cited 6 times
No. 16886. June 15, 1967. Gary Green, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Martin R. Ganzglass, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief, for petitioner. Jerry S. McCroskey, Muskegon, Mich., Marcus, McCroskey, Libner, Reamon, Williams Dilley, Darryl R. Cochrane, Muskegon, Mich., on brief, for respondent. Before EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE and PECK, Circuit Judges. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge. The National
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,106 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

The Orgon

11 Cited authorities

Holding that union employees' refusal to install third-party manufacturer's product was not prohibited under § 158(b)(B), because it was an action "pressuring the [union members'] employer for agreements regulating relations between [the employer] and his own employees"

Holding that an agreement between a union and a nonlabor party, which is wholly-unrelated to any collective-bargaining effort on the part of the union and which operates or threatens to operate as a restraint on trade, may be the basis for a federal antitrust suit

Holding no substantial interference with the plaintiff's right to marry where the government terminated a disabled dependent child's Social Security benefits after plaintiff married someone ineligible for benefits

Rejecting Government position that we should defer to the Board's interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act

In FMC v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n, 435 U.S. 40, 98 S.Ct. 927, 55 L.Ed.2d 96 (1978), the Supreme Court cited these guidelines with approval.

In NLRB v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 405 F.2d at 162, this court held that only that part of a contract that exceeds the limits of the construction industry provision is negated.

Nothing that the pre-implementation filing and approval requirements of section 15, if applied to collective bargaining agreements, "make nearly impossible the maintenance or prompt restoration of industrial peace"

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"