INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 181 (MAXIM CRANE WORKS)

14 Cited authorities

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"
Air Line Pilots v. O'Neill
499 U.S. 65 (1991) Cited 1,077 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that this rule "applies to all union activity"
Steelworkers v. Rawson
495 U.S. 362 (1990) Cited 573 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that union could contractually undertake, in collective bargaining agreement, other duties towards member employees in addition to statutorily-imposed duty of fair representation
Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers
493 U.S. 67 (1989) Cited 302 times
Holding that failure of union to refer plaintiff for employment was not cognizable under the LMRDA because it did not involve "discipline"
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
Steele v. L. N.R. Co.
323 U.S. 192 (1944) Cited 960 times
Holding that a labor organization must represent all members of a "craft or class of employees . . . regardless of their union affiliations or want of them"
Trnka v. Local Union No. 688
30 F.3d 60 (7th Cir. 1994) Cited 60 times
Holding that bare assertions that speech and adverse actions are related is insufficient to survive summary judgment
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
International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
133 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 1998) Cited 24 times 2 Legal Analyses
Noting that in challenge to extra-unit fees, litigation expenses were "treated separately by the parties but [are] analytically identical, as far as we can see"
Lucas v. N.L.R.B
333 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 13 times
Defining substantial evidence
Rule 408 - Compromise Offers and Negotiations
Fed. R. Evid. 408 Cited 4,439 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that premature deliberations constituted an internal jury influence subject to the post-verdict restrictions of Rule 606(b)

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 181 (MAXIM CRANE WORKS)

14 Cited authorities

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 this rule "applies to all union activity"

Holding that union could contractually undertake, in collective bargaining agreement, other duties towards member employees in addition to statutorily-imposed duty of fair representation

Holding that failure of union to refer plaintiff for employment was not cognizable under the LMRDA because it did not involve "discipline"

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

Holding that a labor organization must represent all members of a "craft or class of employees . . . regardless of their union affiliations or want of them"

Holding that bare assertions that speech and adverse actions are related is insufficient to survive summary judgment

Noting that in challenge to extra-unit fees, litigation expenses were "treated separately by the parties but [are] analytically identical, as far as we can see"

Defining substantial evidence

Holding that premature deliberations constituted an internal jury influence subject to the post-verdict restrictions of Rule 606(b)