§

United Mine Workers of America

217 N.L.R.B. 541 (N.L.R.B. 1975)
United Mine Workers of America

10 Cited authorities

  1. Gateway Coal Co. v. Mine Workers

    414 U.S. 368 (1974)   Cited 369 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that contractual agreement to submit disagreements to binding arbitration included disputes over safety and thus gave rise to implied obligation not to strike over such disputes

  2. Florida Power Light v. Electrical Workers

    417 U.S. 790 (1974)   Cited 96 times
    In Florida Power Light Co. v. IBEW, Local 641, 417 U.S. 790, 804-05, 94 S.Ct. 2737, 2744-45, 41 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974), the Supreme Court held that no § 8(b)(1)(B) violation occurs unless the disciplined conduct adversely affects the performance of his or her § 8(b)(1)(B) duties.

  3. KFC National Management Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    497 F.2d 298 (2d Cir. 1974)   Cited 43 times
    In KFC National Management Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 497 F.2d 298 (2d Cir. 1974), the N.L.R.B. regional director had made an ex parte investigation into the plaintiff's allegation of an unfair labor practice, and had concluded that it had not merit.

  4. Automated Business Systems v. N.L.R.B

    497 F.2d 262 (6th Cir. 1974)   Cited 29 times
    Holding a bargaining order is appropriate where at one point the union had a majority but employer misconduct undermined majority strength and impeded the election process

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Toledo Locals Nos. 15-P 272

    437 F.2d 55 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 12 times

    No. 20297. January 27, 1971. Michael F. Messitte, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Abigail Cooley Baskir, Michael F. Messitte, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Warren D. Wolfe, Toledo, Ohio, for respondent. James F. Duggan, Chicago, Ill., for intervenor; James F. Duggan, George W. Moehlenhof, on brief; McDermott, Will Emery, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. Before

  6. Meat Cutters U. Local 81 of A.M.C. v. N.L.R.B

    458 F.2d 794 (D.C. Cir. 1972)   Cited 7 times
    In Meat Cutters we considered this prior analysis of the 1947 legislative history and concluded that "[a] supervisor's obligations to his union simply cannot detract from the absolute duty, evidenced by section 8(b)(1)(B), which he owes to his employer when exercising his managerial authority."

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Silver Bay Local Union No. 962

    510 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir. 1975)   Cited 3 times

    No. 73-1037. February 4, 1975. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 28, 1975. Stanley Zirkin (argued), N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Lawrence R. Schwerin (argued), Donaldson, Hafer, Cassidy Price, Seattle, Wash., for respondent. On Application for Enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before KOELSCH, CARTER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, OPINION EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: Our opinion of May 22, 1974, vacated that portion of the Board's order which

  8. New Power Wire and Electric Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    340 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1965)   Cited 8 times

    Nos. 196, 197, Docket 28597, 28627. Argued December 18, 1964. Decided January 7, 1965. Leonard Seiser, New York City, for petitioner employer. Glen M. Bendixsen, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, N.L.R.B.), for Board as respondent and petitioner. Harold Stern, New York City (Norman Rothfeld, New York City, of counsel), for respondent Union. Before FRIENDLY, HAYS and MARSHALL

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union

    274 F.2d 376 (3d Cir. 1960)   Cited 11 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, 274 F.2d 376, 379 (3d Cir. 1960), the court upheld the union's refusal to bargain where management had placed an ex-union official on its panel for the express purpose of "putting one over" on the union.

  10. American Art Clay Company v. N.L.R.B

    328 F.2d 88 (7th Cir. 1964)   Cited 6 times
    In American Art Clay Co., supra, however, Judge Duffy, who also wrote the Phoenix Mutual opinion, explained the Phoenix Mutual case in holding that the concerted activity of employees protesting a change in supervisory personnel, which affects their job interests, is not protected under the Act if the character of the concerted activity is intemperate.