§

United Technologies Corp.

274 N.L.R.B. 1069 (N.L.R.B. 1985)
United Technologies Corp.

19 Cited authorities

  1. Letter Carriers v. Austin

    418 U.S. 264 (1974)   Cited 609 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union newsletter's description of a “scab” as a “traitor” could not be construed as a factual assertion

  2. Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass

    404 U.S. 157 (1971)   Cited 630 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit

  3. Linn v. Plant Guard Workers

    383 U.S. 53 (1966)   Cited 732 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding as preempted all defamation actions in labor disputes except those published with actual malice

  4. 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

  5. Labor Board v. Insurance Agents

    361 U.S. 477 (1960)   Cited 324 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 265 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"

  7. Labor Board v. American Ins. Co.

    343 U.S. 395 (1952)   Cited 269 times
    Holding the degree of discretion in a CBA "is an issue for determination across the bargaining table, not by the Board"

  8. Teamsters Union v. Oliver

    358 U.S. 283 (1959)   Cited 166 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Teamsters v. Oliver, 358 U.S. 283 (1959), we held that a state antitrust law could not be used to challenge an employer-union agreement. Justice White's opinion in Jewel Tea explains, however, that Oliver held only that "[a]s the agreement did not embody a `"remote and indirect approach to the subject of wages'... but a direct frontal attack upon a problem thought to threaten the maintenance of the basic wage structure established by the collective bargaining contract,' [358 U.S.], at 294, the paramount federal policy of encouraging collective bargaining proscribed application of the state law.

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Herman Sausage Co

    275 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1960)   Cited 79 times
    In NLRB v. Herman Sausage Co., 275 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1960), our circuit held that "generally speaking, the freedom to grant a unilateral wage increase "is limited to cases where there has been a bona fide but unsuccessful attempt to reach an agreement with the union, or where the union bears the guilt for having broken off relations.' NLRB v. Andrew Jergens Co., 9 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 130, 136, cert. denied, 338 U.S. 827, 70 S.Ct. 76, 94 L.Ed. 503.

  10. Curtiss-Wright, Wright Aero. Div. v. N.L.R.B

    347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965)   Cited 55 times
    Noting the Board has "considerable leeway in amplifying or expanding certain details not specifically set forth in the complaint if they accord with the general substance of the complaint"