Triangle PWC, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board

    379 U.S. 203 (1964)   Cited 730 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
  2. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 709 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"
  3. Labor Board v. Columbian Co.

    306 U.S. 292 (1939)   Cited 994 times
    Defining substantial evidence
  4. Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Rel. Board

    170 F.2d 247 (7th Cir. 1949)   Cited 156 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Accepting the Board's conclusion "that the term `wages' . . . must be construed to include emoluments of value, like pension and insurance benefits, which may accrue to employees out of their employment relationship"
  5. Timken Roller Bearing Company v. N.L.R.B

    325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963)   Cited 56 times
    In Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 971, 84 S.Ct. 1135, 12 L.Ed.2d 85 (1964), the court considered a union request for information concerning five grievances that awaited hearings before a chosen arbitrator.
  6. NLRB v. Item Co.

    220 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1955)   Cited 36 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Item Company, 220 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1955), this court held that an employer had no confidentiality privilege to withhold from the union relevant wage data, "which the union's own employee-members apparently refused to disclose to it."
  7. N.L.R.B. v. Perkins Machine Company

    326 F.2d 488 (1st Cir. 1964)   Cited 14 times

    No. 6182. January 23, 1964. Peter M. Giesey, Washington, D.C., Atty., with whom Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Solomon I. Hirsh, Washington, D.C., Atty., were on brief, for petitioner. John H. Goewey, Worcester, Mass., with whom James S. Gratton and Bowditch, Gowetz Lane, Worcester, Mass., were on brief, for respondent. Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Respondent