Victor Ryckebosch, Inc.

21 Cited authorities

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"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Strong
393 U.S. 357 (1969) Cited 115 times
Explaining that, though broad, the NLRA's grant of remedial power "does not authorize punitive measures"
Farmers Irrigation Co. v. McComb
337 U.S. 755 (1949) Cited 145 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Farmers Reservoir, for example, the Supreme Court concluded that "the physical operation, control and maintenance" of "canals, reservoirs, and headgates" for a company that stored water and distributed it to farms through the company's canals were activities "[c]learly... not done on a farm."
Maneja v. Waialua Agricultural Co.
349 U.S. 254 (1955) Cited 82 times
Holding that railroad workers who transported workers, tools, and sugar cane on a sugar cane plantation were exempt agricultural employees
Bowie v. Gonzalez
117 F.2d 11 (1st Cir. 1941) Cited 96 times
In Bowie v. Gonzalez, 1 Cir., 117 F.2d 11, 20, the Circuit Court of Appeals held "dead" season employees who were "engaged in the repair and maintenance of the milling and transportation facilities" of a company engaged in gathering and refining sugar cane, were covered by the Act.
Overnite Transportation Company v. N.L.R.B
372 F.2d 765 (4th Cir. 1967) Cited 28 times
Nos. 10570, 10617. Argued November 4, 1966. Decided February 6, 1967. J.W. Alexander, Jr., Charlotte, N.C. (Ernest W. Machen, Jr., and Blakeney, Alexander Machen, Charlotte, N.C., on brief), for petitioner Overnite Transp. Co. Hugh J. Beins, Washington, D.C., (Michael F. Grdina, Willoughby, Ohio, on brief), for petitioner Teamsters Local Union No. 171. Gary Green, Atty., N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Colten
105 F.2d 179 (6th Cir. 1939) Cited 62 times
In National Labor Relations Board v. Colten, 6 Cir., 105 F.2d 179, 183, it was said that "* * * the strife which is sought to be averted is no less an object of legislative solicitude when contract, death, or operation of law brings about change of ownership in the employing agency."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Armato
199 F.2d 800 (7th Cir. 1952) Cited 38 times
No. 10691. November 19, 1952. George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Dominick L. Manoli, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. O.S. Hoebreckx and Clark M. Robertson, Robertson Hoebreckx, Milwaukee, Wis., for respondents. Before MAJOR, Chief Judge, and LINDLEY and SWAIM, Circuit Judges. LINDLEY, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to the provisions
Mitchell v. Huntsville Wholesale Nurseries
267 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1959) Cited 28 times
Holding that the processing by a farmer of commodities of other farmers is incidental to, or in conjunction with, the farming operations of those other farmers and therefore not within the definition of agriculture
Wirtz v. Osceola Farms Company
372 F.2d 584 (5th Cir. 1967) Cited 17 times
In Wirtz v. Osceola Farms Co., 372 F.2d 584, 589 (5th Cir.1967), we held that the hauling of raw cane to a mill was incidental to milling, not farming, taking it outside the agriculture exemption.
Section 203 - Definitions
29 U.S.C. § 203 Cited 6,991 times 280 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that "custom or practice" under a collective-bargaining agreement can make changing clothes noncompensable

Victor Ryckebosch, Inc.

21 Cited authorities

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"

Explaining that, though broad, the NLRA's grant of remedial power "does not authorize punitive measures"

In Farmers Reservoir, for example, the Supreme Court concluded that "the physical operation, control and maintenance" of "canals, reservoirs, and headgates" for a company that stored water and distributed it to farms through the company's canals were activities "[c]learly... not done on a farm."

Holding that railroad workers who transported workers, tools, and sugar cane on a sugar cane plantation were exempt agricultural employees

In Bowie v. Gonzalez, 1 Cir., 117 F.2d 11, 20, the Circuit Court of Appeals held "dead" season employees who were "engaged in the repair and maintenance of the milling and transportation facilities" of a company engaged in gathering and refining sugar cane, were covered by the Act.

In National Labor Relations Board v. Colten, 6 Cir., 105 F.2d 179, 183, it was said that "* * * the strife which is sought to be averted is no less an object of legislative solicitude when contract, death, or operation of law brings about change of ownership in the employing agency."

Holding that the processing by a farmer of commodities of other farmers is incidental to, or in conjunction with, the farming operations of those other farmers and therefore not within the definition of agriculture

In Wirtz v. Osceola Farms Co., 372 F.2d 584, 589 (5th Cir.1967), we held that the hauling of raw cane to a mill was incidental to milling, not farming, taking it outside the agriculture exemption.

Recognizing that "custom or practice" under a collective-bargaining agreement can make changing clothes noncompensable