§

Transport Co. of Texas

175 N.L.R.B. 763 (N.L.R.B. 1969)
Transport Co. of Texas

15 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 710 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"

  3. American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board

    380 U.S. 300 (1965)   Cited 350 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful

  4. 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

  5. American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    395 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1968)   Cited 102 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying Taft

  6. Dallas Gen. Drivers, W. H., L. v. N.L.R.B

    355 F.2d 842 (D.C. Cir. 1966)   Cited 40 times
    Reviewing factors considered in impasse cases

  7. N.L.R.B. v. American Manufacturing Co. of Texas

    351 F.2d 74 (5th Cir. 1965)   Cited 36 times
    Subcontracting motivated by desire to escape union

  8. Jeffery-De Witt Insulator Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    91 F.2d 134 (4th Cir. 1937)   Cited 80 times
    In Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator Co. v. NLRB, 4 Cir., 91 F.2d 134, 139-140, 112 A.L.R. 948 (Parker, J.), there was bargaining followed by a strike resulting in a closing of the plant.

  9. Int'l United A., A., A. v. N.L.R.B

    394 F.2d 757 (D.C. Cir. 1968)   Cited 7 times
    In UAW, Pierce Governor Company operated a production facility in Anderson, Indiana, where the employees were represented by Local 940; for several decades, the “contracts had been made between the Company ‘and the International and its Local 940, jointly (herein called “the Union”), as the “exclusive bargaining agency” for the employees....’ ” Id. at 761 (emphasis added).

  10. United Steelworkers of Am., v. N.L.R.B

    389 F.2d 295 (D.C. Cir. 1967)   Cited 6 times

    Nos. 19492, 19507. December 8, 1967. Messrs. Elliot Bredhoff, Michael H. Gottesman and George H. Cohen, Washington, D.C., were on the motion for petitioner in No. 19,492 and intervenor in No. 19,507. Messrs. Daniel W. Sixbey and Bartholomew Diggins, Washington, D.C., were on the opposition for petitioner in No. 19,507. Mr. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, filed an appearance on behalf of respondent. Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior