Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson

16 Cited authorities

Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
460 U.S. 693 (1983) Cited 311 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights
J.I. Case Co. v. Labor Board
321 U.S. 332 (1944) Cited 457 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the result of a collective bargaining agreement is not "a contract of employment except in rare cases; no one has a job by reason of it and no obligation to any individual ordinarily comes into existence from it alone"
Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.
356 U.S. 342 (1958) Cited 296 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."
Central States S.E. S.W. Areas v. Kraftco
799 F.2d 1098 (6th Cir. 1986) Cited 73 times
Holding that pension fund's § 301 suit against employer alleging breach of CBA by failing to make required payments into pension fund was subject to state contracts statute of limitations
Local Union 1395, Intern. Broth. v. N.L.R.B
797 F.2d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1986) Cited 50 times
Adopting this section of the Restatement
American Postal Workers v. Am. Postal Wkrs
665 F.2d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1981) Cited 37 times
Holding that plaintiffs may not use Rule 19 to join employer in action against union unless plaintiffs show employer "to have been implicated in the union's breach of duty to its members"
N.L.R.B. v. L. B. Priester Son, Inc.
669 F.2d 355 (5th Cir. 1982) Cited 26 times
Asserting that, when extrinsic evidence is considered to resolve ambiguity, “the inquiry [is] essentially factual,” and adding that “factual findings by the NLRB are to be upheld if supported by substantial evidence based on the record as a whole”
Toledo Typographical Un. No. 63 v. N.L.R.B
907 F.2d 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1990) Cited 11 times
In Toledo Typographical Union No. 63 v. NLRB, 907 F.2d 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1990), the court, reversing the Board, held that a proposal for direct employer-employee negotiations over retirement buyouts was a permissive subject upon which an employer could not insist to impasse.
Teamsters Local Union No. 175 v. N.L.R.B
788 F.2d 27 (D.C. Cir. 1986) Cited 13 times
Referring to the Board's recent construction of the term "bargaining impasse" under Section 8 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158
Houchens Market of Elizabethtown v. N.L.R.B
375 F.2d 208 (6th Cir. 1967) Cited 28 times
In Houchens, for example, the union initially told the employer that "any contract proposal or recommendation would be subject to approval by the employees."

Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson

16 Cited authorities

Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights

Holding that the result of a collective bargaining agreement is not "a contract of employment except in rare cases; no one has a job by reason of it and no obligation to any individual ordinarily comes into existence from it alone"

Holding that pension fund's § 301 suit against employer alleging breach of CBA by failing to make required payments into pension fund was subject to state contracts statute of limitations

Adopting this section of the Restatement

Holding that plaintiffs may not use Rule 19 to join employer in action against union unless plaintiffs show employer "to have been implicated in the union's breach of duty to its members"

Asserting that, when extrinsic evidence is considered to resolve ambiguity, “the inquiry [is] essentially factual,” and adding that “factual findings by the NLRB are to be upheld if supported by substantial evidence based on the record as a whole”

In Toledo Typographical Union No. 63 v. NLRB, 907 F.2d 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1990), the court, reversing the Board, held that a proposal for direct employer-employee negotiations over retirement buyouts was a permissive subject upon which an employer could not insist to impasse.

Referring to the Board's recent construction of the term "bargaining impasse" under Section 8 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158

In Houchens, for example, the union initially told the employer that "any contract proposal or recommendation would be subject to approval by the employees."