International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 324 and 324-A, AFL-CIO (Michigan Conveyor Manuf
7 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962) Cited 298 timesExplaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"
H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 514 (1941) Cited 241 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.
B. Brooks, v. Int'l Ladies' Garment Wkrs. U
835 F.2d 1164 (6th Cir. 1987) Cited 35 timesStating that district court's finding that a contract exists is subject to de novo review
Metco Products, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
884 F.2d 156 (4th Cir. 1989) Cited 27 timesInterpreting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 27
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Etc. v. N.L.R.B
659 F.2d 87 (8th Cir. 1981) Cited 26 timesIn Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 659 F.2d 87 (8th Cir. 1981) (Pepsi Cola), the union initially rejected the offer and three weeks passed between offer and acceptance. During the three-week interval, the employer met with the union for several bargaining sessions but did not expressly withdraw its offer.
Amax Coal Co. v. N.L.R.B
614 F.2d 872 (3d Cir. 1980) Cited 22 timesHolding that "doing business under § 158(e) refers to a continuing business relationship, not to the sale of a facility
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Warehousemen's Union Local 17, International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union
451 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1971) Cited 6 timesUpholding Board remedial order requiring union to make employer whole for financial expenditures made by employer as result of an unlawfully coerced collective bargaining agreement