§

United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund

192 N.L.R.B. 1022 (N.L.R.B. 1971)
United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund

10 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Office Employes v. Labor Board

    353 U.S. 313 (1957)   Cited 54 times
    Holding that, when a union acts as an employer, it is deemed an employer within the meaning of the NLRA and subject to the jurisdiction of the NLRB

  3. N.L.R.B. v. David Buttrick Company

    399 F.2d 505 (1st Cir. 1968)   Cited 20 times

    No. 6636. August 22, 1968. Warren M. Davison, Washington, D.C., with whom Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Marion Griffin, Washington, D.C., Atty., were on the brief, for petitioners. Mark G. Kaplan, Boston, Mass., with whom Samuel E. Angoff and Angoff, Goldman, Manning Pyle, Boston, Mass., were on the brief, for intervenor. John J. Delaney, Jr., Boston, Mass., with whom Murray S. Freeman and Nutter, McClennen

  4. Local 636, Plumbing Pipe v. N.L.R.B

    287 F.2d 354 (D.C. Cir. 1961)   Cited 27 times

    Nos. 15665, 15707. Argued December 1, 1960. Decided January 19, 1961. Petition for Rehearing Denied March 22, 1961. Mr. Patrick C. O'Donoghue, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Martin F. O'Donoghue and Thomas X. Dunn, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for petitioner in No. 15,665. Mr. Morton Namrow, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board,

  5. Chicago Rawhide Mfg. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    221 F.2d 165 (7th Cir. 1955)   Cited 31 times
    In Chicago Rawhide, this Court concluded that: "[n]either mere cooperation, preference, nor possibility of control constitute unfair labor practices; and the Board may not infer conduct that is violative of the Act from conduct that is not, unless there is a substantial basis, in fact or reason, for that inference."

  6. Modern Plastics Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    379 F.2d 201 (6th Cir. 1967)   Cited 16 times
    In Modern Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 379 F.2d 201, 203 (6th Cir. 1967), this Court noted that "[t]here is a line between cooperation and domination, and the purpose of the Act is to encourage cooperation and discourage domination."

  7. Coppus Engineering Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    240 F.2d 564 (1st Cir. 1957)   Cited 25 times
    In Coppus we adopted the requirement of actual evidence of domination of Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 221 F.2d 165 (7th Cir. 1955), and found none. Chief Judge Magruder, in a concurring opinion, recognized fully that the Shop Committee may have been "a feeble instrument", 240 F.2d at 573, but that it was "not the duty of the employer nor a function of the Board to `baby' along the employees in the direction of choosing an outside union."

  8. National Labor Rel. Board v. Gen. Shoe Corp.

    192 F.2d 504 (6th Cir. 1951)   Cited 26 times
    Holding similar committee to be labor organization

  9. N.L.R.B. v. David Buttrick Company

    361 F.2d 300 (1st Cir. 1966)   Cited 10 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. David Buttrick Co., 361 F.2d 300 (1st Cir. 1966) (Buttrick I), a milk distributor, Buttrick, had refused to bargain with Local 380 because of loans totaling $4,700,000 made by the Fund to Whiting.

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Employing Bricklayers' Ass'n of Delaware Valley & Vicinity

    292 F.2d 627 (3d Cir. 1961)   Cited 5 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Employing Bricklayers' Ass'n of Del. Val. Vic., 3 Cir., 292 F.2d 627, 628-629, a case similar to the one at bar, the court upheld Board action that the employer interfered with internal administration of the union when supervisors participated in the selection of union officers and bargaining representatives.