ยง

Building and Construction Trades Council of Reading and Berks County

155 N.L.R.B. 1184 (N.L.R.B. 1965)
Building and Construction Trades Council of Reading and Berks County

9 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Labor Board v. Mexia Textile Mills

    339 U.S. 563 (1950)   Cited 132 times
    Reasoning that Board's entitlement to enforcement prevents cases from becoming moot because it "adds to existing sanctions that of punishment for contempt"

  3. Carpenters Union v. Labor Board

    341 U.S. 707 (1951)   Cited 89 times
    In Carpenters Union v. Labor Board, 341 U.S. 707, 71 S.Ct. 966, 971, supra, the Supreme Court said: "The use of such pressure on this renovation project was merely a sample of what might be repeated elsewhere if not prohibited. The underlying dispute between petitioners and Watson's has not been shown to have been resolved."

  4. Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co.

    365 U.S. 695 (1961)   Cited 22 times
    In NLRB v. News Syndicate Co., 365 U.S. 695, 81 S.Ct. 849, 6 L.Ed.2d 29 (1961), where the bargaining unit included supervisors, the NLRB had found that both the employer and the union had committed unfair labor practices by operating an unlawful closed shop and preferential hiring system.

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Serv. Trade C

    191 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1951)   Cited 44 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Service Trade Chauffeurs, etc., supra, it was said: "We take this to mean that a union may lawfully inflict harm on a neutral employer, without violating ยง 8 (b) (4), so long as the harm is merely incidental to a traditionally lawful primary strike, conducted at the place where the primary employer does business."

  6. International Org., Masters, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    351 F.2d 771 (D.C. Cir. 1965)   Cited 15 times

    No. 15537. Argued November 3, 1960. Decided June 21, 1965. Miss Betty H. Olchin, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, Cristobal, Canal Zone, with whom Messrs. Mozart G. Ratner and Isaac N. Groner, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for petitioners. Miss Margaret M. Farmer, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., at the time the brief was filed, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost

  7. Northeastern Ind. Bldg. Const. v. N.L.R.B

    352 F.2d 696 (D.C. Cir. 1965)   Cited 13 times

    No. 19164. Argued June 11, 1965. Decided July 28, 1965. Mr. Bernard M. Mamet, Chicago, Ill., with whom Mr. James F. Carroll, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioners. Mr. Melvin J. Welles, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Mrs. Linda R. Sher, Atty., N.L.R.B., were on the brief, for respondent. Before DANAHER, BURGER and McGOWAN, Circuit Judges. McGOWAN, Circuit Judge:

  8. N.L.R.B. v. News Syndicate Company, Inc.

    279 F.2d 323 (2d Cir. 1960)   Cited 8 times

    No. 45, Docket 25496. Argued January 12, 1960. Decided May 20, 1960. Melvin Pollack, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. J. Howard Carter, New York City (Townley, Updike, Carter Rodgers, and Andrew L. Hughes, New York City, on the brief), for respondent News Syndicate Co., Inc. Gerhard P. Van Arkel, of Van Arkel Kaiser

  9. International Bro. of Elec. Wkrs. v. N.L.R.B

    350 F.2d 791 (D.C. Cir. 1965)   Cited 2 times
    In Electrical Workers v. NLRB, supra, for example, we noted that striking employees could picket at a gate on the struck employer's premises which was reserved exclusively for employees of the secondary employer, to induce those employees to refuse to perform work for their employer which was connected with the struck employer's normal business operations.