Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (Carignan Construction Company)

12 Cited authorities

National Woodwork Manufacturers Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
386 U.S. 612 (1967) Cited 392 times
Holding that union employees' refusal to install third-party manufacturer's product was not prohibited under § 158(b)(B), because it was an action "pressuring the [union members'] employer for agreements regulating relations between [the employer] and his own employees"
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
Labor Board v. Fruit Packers
377 U.S. 58 (1964) Cited 236 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that NLRA section 8(b)(B) does not prohibit "peaceful picketing . . . limited . . . to persuading Safeway customers not to buy Washington State apples when they traded in Safeway stores"
Electrical Workers v. Labor Board
366 U.S. 667 (1961) Cited 186 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union may picket a secondary employer only when the primary employer is at the job site
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"
Labor Board v. Servette
377 U.S. 46 (1964) Cited 74 times
Holding under section 8(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b), that statutory protection for the distribution of handbills would be undermined if a threat to engage in protected conduct were not itself protected
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".
Seafarers International Un., Etc. v. N.L.R.B
265 F.2d 585 (D.C. Cir. 1959) Cited 46 times
No. 14373. Argued November 4, 1958. Decided January 29, 1959. Mr. C. Paul Barker, New Orleans, La., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Ray R. Murdock, Washington, D.C., and Seymour W. Miller, Brooklyn, N.Y., were on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Norton J. Come, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, with whom Mr. Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Mr. Thomas J. McDermott, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, and Mr. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel

Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (Carignan Construction Company)

12 Cited authorities

Holding that union employees' refusal to install third-party manufacturer's product was not prohibited under § 158(b)(B), because it was an action "pressuring the [union members'] employer for agreements regulating relations between [the employer] and his own employees"

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 NLRA section 8(b)(B) does not prohibit "peaceful picketing . . . limited . . . to persuading Safeway customers not to buy Washington State apples when they traded in Safeway stores"

Holding that a union may picket a secondary employer only when the primary employer is at the job site

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"

Holding under section 8(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b), that statutory protection for the distribution of handbills would be undermined if a threat to engage in protected conduct were not itself protected

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".