George Williams Sheet Metal Co.

14 Cited authorities

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,683 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
Vaca v. Sipes
386 U.S. 171 (1967) Cited 4,210 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, under the LMRA, an "individual employee has absolute right to have his grievance taken to arbitration regardless of the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement"
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
Manual Enterprises v. Day
370 U.S. 478 (1962) Cited 244 times
In Manual Enterprises v. Day, 370 U.S. 478, I joined MR. JUSTICE HARLAN'S opinion adding "patent indecency" as a further essential element of that which is not constitutionally protected.
Teamsters Local v. Labor Board
365 U.S. 667 (1961) Cited 174 times
Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria
Labor Board v. Nevada Copper Co.
316 U.S. 105 (1942) Cited 196 times
Holding that "if the findings of the Board are supported by evidence the courts are not free to set them aside even though the Board could have drawn different inferences"
Int. Com. Comm. v. Union Pacific R.R
222 U.S. 541 (1912) Cited 339 times
In Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific R.R., 222 U.S. 541, 549, in speaking of the carriers' concession that they were unable to determine the cost of the particular traffic in question and that a former rate had not been `less than cost,' the court said: "This concession... establishes an important fact in dealing with the difficult question of determining what is a reasonable rate on a particular article.
United States v. Forness
125 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1942) Cited 185 times
In United States v. Forness, 125 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 316 U.S. 694, 62 S.Ct. 1293, 86 L.Ed. 1764 (1942), the Second Circuit concluded that the trial court need only make brief, definite, pertinent findings and conclusions on the contested matters.
N.L.R.B. v. Miranda Fuel Co., Inc.
326 F.2d 172 (2d Cir. 1963) Cited 98 times
No. 73, Docket 26232. Argued October 21, 1963. Decided December 11, 1963. Melvin J. Welles, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Herman M. Levy, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Samuel J. Cohen, New York City (Jack Last and Cohen Weiss, New York City, on the brief), for respondent Union. Ruth
N.L.R.B. v. Local 294, Int'l Bro. of Teamsters
317 F.2d 746 (2d Cir. 1963) Cited 13 times
No. 234, Docket 27825. Argued January 29, 1963. Decided May 21, 1963. Allison W. Brown, Jr., Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallett-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Gladys Kessler, atty., N.L.R.B.), for petitioner. Harry Pozefsky, Gloversville, N.Y., for respondent. Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, HAYS, Circuit Judge, and DIMOCK, District Judge. HAYS, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of an order based

George Williams Sheet Metal Co.

14 Cited authorities

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

Holding that, under the LMRA, an "individual employee has absolute right to have his grievance taken to arbitration regardless of the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement"

Holding that a union acting in its representative capacity owes a duty of fair representation to those on whose behalf it acts

In Manual Enterprises v. Day, 370 U.S. 478, I joined MR. JUSTICE HARLAN'S opinion adding "patent indecency" as a further essential element of that which is not constitutionally protected.

Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria

Holding that "if the findings of the Board are supported by evidence the courts are not free to set them aside even though the Board could have drawn different inferences"

In United States v. Forness, 125 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 316 U.S. 694, 62 S.Ct. 1293, 86 L.Ed. 1764 (1942), the Second Circuit concluded that the trial court need only make brief, definite, pertinent findings and conclusions on the contested matters.