Union Carbide Corp.

8 Cited authorities

Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board
379 U.S. 203 (1964) Cited 734 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
American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board
380 U.S. 300 (1965) Cited 351 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
Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board
350 U.S. 270 (1956) Cited 403 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"
Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.
356 U.S. 342 (1958) Cited 296 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."
Labor Board v. Lion Oil Co.
352 U.S. 282 (1957) Cited 139 times
Observing that the court bears "a judicial responsibility to find that interpretation which can most fairly be said to be embedded in the statute, in the sense of being most harmonious with its scheme and with the general purposes that Congress manifested"
McLeod v. Compressed Air, Found
292 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1961) Cited 15 times
No. 425, Docket 27020. Argued June 20, 1961. Decided July 11, 1961. I. Philip Sipser, New York City (Paul O'Dwyer and John S. Williamson, Jr., New York City, on the brief), for respondent-appellant. Winthrop A. Johns, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Jacques Schurre, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner-appellee. Before CLARK and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DAWSON, District Judge
N.L.R.B. v. International Bhd. of Elec. Wkrs
266 F.2d 349 (5th Cir. 1959) Cited 15 times
No. 17366. April 20, 1959. William J. Avrutis, Atty., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Owsley Vose, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. L.N.D. Wells, Jr., Dallas, Tex., Louis Sherman, William J. Brown, Washington, D.C., Mullinax, Wells Morris, Dallas, Tex., for respondents. Frank Cain, Dallas, Tex., Irion, Cain, Cocke Macgee, Dallas, Tex., of counsel, for Texlite, Inc., Amicus Curiae. Before RIVES
United States Pipe and Foundry Co. v. N.L.R.B
298 F.2d 873 (5th Cir. 1962) Cited 11 times
In United States Pipe and Foundry Co. v. N.L.R.B., 298 F.2d 873, 877-78 (5th Cir. 1962), the court held that a union's insistence during bargaining on a common expiration date for its own as well as its sister unions' contracts was not unlawful.

Union Carbide Corp.

8 Cited authorities

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

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

Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"

Observing that the court bears "a judicial responsibility to find that interpretation which can most fairly be said to be embedded in the statute, in the sense of being most harmonious with its scheme and with the general purposes that Congress manifested"

In United States Pipe and Foundry Co. v. N.L.R.B., 298 F.2d 873, 877-78 (5th Cir. 1962), the court held that a union's insistence during bargaining on a common expiration date for its own as well as its sister unions' contracts was not unlawful.