Tom Joyce Floors, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

San Diego Unions v. Garmon
359 U.S. 236 (1959) Cited 2,573 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"
Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn
373 U.S. 746 (1963) Cited 821 times
Concluding that—under Section 14(b) and the rule announced in General Motors Corp .—states may ban "agency shop" agreements by which employees have an "obligation to pay initiation fees and regular dues, ....[w]hatever may be the status of less stringent union-security arrangements ...."
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 712 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
Garner v. Teamsters Union
346 U.S. 485 (1953) Cited 690 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Garner the emphasis was not on two conflicting labor statutes but rather on two similar remedies, one state and one federal, brought to bear on precisely the same conduct.
Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp.
373 U.S. 221 (1963) Cited 359 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"
Labor Board v. Mackay Co.
304 U.S. 333 (1938) Cited 535 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices
Teamsters Local v. Labor Board
365 U.S. 667 (1961) Cited 174 times
Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria
Carpenters Local v. Labor Board
365 U.S. 651 (1961) Cited 84 times
Noting Board's authority is remedial, not punitive
Labor Board v. Crompton Mills
337 U.S. 217 (1949) Cited 102 times
Holding unlawful unilateral changes significantly different from "any which the employer has proposed" during bargaining
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Reed Prince MFG
118 F.2d 874 (1st Cir. 1941) Cited 40 times
In National Labor Relations Board v. Reed Prince Mfg. Co., 1 Cir., 118 F.2d 874, certiorari denied 313 U.S. 595, 61 S.Ct. 1119, 85 L.Ed. 1549, it was held that an employer's insistence on a provision in a contract with a bargaining agent, that during the period of the contract or at any future time the employees and the union would not request or demand a closed shop agreement or check-off system, warranted the National Labor Relations Board in inferring that the employer was not actuated by a genuine desire to reach an accord with the bargaining representative.
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,109 times 35 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"

Tom Joyce Floors, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"

Concluding that—under Section 14(b) and the rule announced in General Motors Corp .—states may ban "agency shop" agreements by which employees have an "obligation to pay initiation fees and regular dues, ....[w]hatever may be the status of less stringent union-security arrangements ...."

Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

In Garner the emphasis was not on two conflicting labor statutes but rather on two similar remedies, one state and one federal, brought to bear on precisely the same conduct.

Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"

Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices

Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria

Noting Board's authority is remedial, not punitive

Holding unlawful unilateral changes significantly different from "any which the employer has proposed" during bargaining

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"