United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO

21 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Laughlin
301 U.S. 1 (1937) Cited 1,499 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis
Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 470 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
Labor Board v. Denver Bldg. Council
341 U.S. 675 (1951) Cited 494 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming Board's assertion of jurisdiction over activities taking place at local construction site based on finding that "any widespread application of the practices charged might well result in substantially decreasing" the flow of interstate commerce
Electrical Workers v. Labor Board
341 U.S. 694 (1951) Cited 246 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prohibition of picketing in furtherance of unlawful objectives is not an abridgement of free speech
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
Labor Board v. Rice Milling Co.
341 U.S. 665 (1951) Cited 126 times
Noting that section 8(b) was intended to preserve "the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes"
International Bhd. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
181 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1950) Cited 89 times
No. 102, Docket 21365. Argued January 4, 1950. Decided February 24, 1950. S.A. Syme, White Plains, N.Y., L. Sherman, P.R. Collins, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. A.N. Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., Robert N. Denham, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Albert M. Dreyer, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., James V. Altieri, New York City, for respondent. Louis Sherman, Washington, D.C., for Brotherhood of Elect
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bus. Mach
228 F.2d 553 (2d Cir. 1955) Cited 67 times
In National Labor Relations Bd. v. Business Mach. etc., CIO (228 F.2d 553) the Circuit Court of Appeals for this circuit declared (p. 559) that "The only thing proscribed by § 8(b)(4) is inducement or encouragement of the employees of the customers".
National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Gen. Drivers, Etc
225 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1955) Cited 43 times
No. 15305. August 2, 1955. Miss Rosanna A. Blake, Atty., N.L.R.B., Silver Springs, Md., Owsley Vose, Asso. Ch. Enf. Br., David P. Findling, Asso. Gen. Cnsl., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Cnsl., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Samuel M. Singer, Attorneys, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Chris Dixie, Houston, Tex., Mullinax Wells, Dallas, Tex., Dixie, Ryan Schulman, Houston, Tex., for respondents. Before RIVES, Circuit Judge, and DAWKINS and DE VANE, District Judges. RIVES, Circuit Judge
Douds v. Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Ect.
75 F. Supp. 672 (S.D.N.Y. 1948) Cited 51 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Douds v. Metropolitan Federation of Architects, etc., 75 F. Supp. 672 (S.D.N.Y. 1948), the court laid heavy emphasis on the economic effect of the work performed by the ally's employees.

United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO

21 Cited authorities

Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

Affirming Board's assertion of jurisdiction over activities taking place at local construction site based on finding that "any widespread application of the practices charged might well result in substantially decreasing" the flow of interstate commerce

Holding that the prohibition of picketing in furtherance of unlawful objectives is not an abridgement of free speech

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

Noting that section 8(b) was intended to preserve "the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes"

In National Labor Relations Bd. v. Business Mach. etc., CIO (228 F.2d 553) the Circuit Court of Appeals for this circuit declared (p. 559) that "The only thing proscribed by § 8(b)(4) is inducement or encouragement of the employees of the customers".

In Douds v. Metropolitan Federation of Architects, etc., 75 F. Supp. 672 (S.D.N.Y. 1948), the court laid heavy emphasis on the economic effect of the work performed by the ally's employees.