§

Los Angeles Mailers Union No. 9, I.T.U.

135 N.L.R.B. 1132 (N.L.R.B. 1962)
Los Angeles Mailers Union No. 9, I.T.U.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman

    345 U.S. 330 (1953)   Cited 881 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union acting in its representative capacity owes a duty of fair representation to those on whose behalf it acts

  2. 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

  3. A.F. of L. v. Labor Board

    308 U.S. 401 (1940)   Cited 340 times
    Holding that certification is not a final order

  4. 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".

  5. Local 1545 v. Vincent

    286 F.2d 127 (2d Cir. 1960)   Cited 45 times
    Noting that "dissenting opinions are not always a reliable guide to the meaning of the majority"

  6. Johnson v. U.S.

    163 F. 30 (1st Cir. 1908)   Cited 139 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Johnson v. United States, 163 F. 30, 32, the court said: "... The major premise of the conclusion expressed in a statute, the change of policy that induces the enactment, may not be set out in terms, but it is not an adequate discharge of duty for the courts to say: We see what you are driving at, but you have not said it, and therefore we shall go on as before."

  7. Brown v. Local No. 17, Amalgamated Lithographers of America

    180 F. Supp. 294 (N.D. Cal. 1960)   Cited 8 times

    No. 38735. January 13, 1960. Walter N. Moldawer, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Robinson, Silverman Pearce, by Benjamin M. Robinson, and Matthew Silverman, New York City, Garry, Dreyfus, McTernan Keller, by Francis J. McTernan, San Francisco, Cal., for respondents. SWEIGERT, District Judge. This proceeding is brought, pursuant to Section 10( l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 61 Stat. 146; 73 Stat. 544; 29 U.S.C.A. § 160( l), which provides that, whenever, after investigation

  8. Lebus v. International Union of Operating Eng., Etc.

    188 F. Supp. 392 (E.D. La. 1960)   Cited 6 times

    Civ. A. No. 10457. October 25, 1960. Jerome L. Avedon, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Dodd, Hirsch, Barker Meunier, Thomas J. Meunier, New Orleans, La., for respondent. Cobb Wright, Joseph V. Ferguson, II, New Orleans, La., Steptoe Johnson, N. Thompson Powers, Washington, D.C., for Baltimore Contractors, Inc. J. SKELLY WRIGHT, District Judge. Under Section 10( l) of the Taft Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160( l), the Regional Director of the NLRB is seeking a temporary injunction against the respondent

  9. Operating Eng. L. Un. No. 3 v. N.L.R.B

    266 F.2d 905 (D.C. Cir. 1959)   Cited 5 times
    In Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 v. NLRB, the Court of Appeals approved the Board's conclusion that a contractor did not violate the Act by complying with a subcontracting clause under which it was not permitted to subcontract engineering work to a firm that did not observe the terms of the union's contract.