National Labor Relations Board v. Local 264, Laborers' International Union of North America (1976)
green
· 43 citation events
across 16 courts.
Showing the 26 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
197620012026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (1982)
Because the time requirement for filing an unfair labor practice charge under the National Labor Relations Act operates as a statute of limitations subject to recognized equitable doctrines and not as a restriction of the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, see NLRB v. Local 264, Laborers’ Int’l Union, 529 F. 2d 778, 781-785 (CA8 1976); Shumate v. NLRB, 452 F. 2d 717, 720 (CA4 1971); NLRB v. A. E.
In addition, "Congress has incorporated this rule into various statutory schemes____ [and] a number of administrative agencies have adopted rules which specify that the date of mailing will constitute the date of service." NLRB v. Local 264, Labors’ International Union of North America, 529 F.2d 778, 784 (8th Cir.1976) (citation and footnote omitted).
This six months filing limit is “a statute of limitations and not a restriction on the jurisdictional powers of the Board.” NLRB v. Local 264, Laborer’s Int’l Union, 529 F.2d 778, 785 (8th Cir.1976).
Citing four cases from the courts of appeals, the Court analogized Title VII’s provision to § 10(b): “[T]he time requirement for filing an unfair labor practice charge under the National Labor Relations Act operates as a statute of limitations subject to recognized equitable doctrines and not as a restriction of the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, see NLRB v. Local 261, Laborers’ Int'l Union, 529 F.2d 778, 781-785 (CA8 1976); Shumate v. NLRB, 452 F.2d 717…
green
Allgood v. Elyria United Methodist Home (1990)
In regard to claims against a union, this court has held that the time period of 10(b) is not a restriction on the NLRB’s power to consider claims against a union under the NLRA: “[t]his six months filing limit is ‘a statute of limitations and not a restriction on the jurisdictional powers of the Board’.” NLRB v. Babcock and Wilcox Co., 697 F.2d 724, 727 (6th Cir.1983), quoting NLRB v. Local 264, Laborer’s Int’l Union, 529 F.2d 778, 785 (8th Cir.1976).
green
Allgood v. Elyria United Methodist Home (1990)
We find that this six-month statute of limitations for hybrid section 301 suits, as applied to either the union or the employer, is procedural, not jurisdictional. 17 In regard to claims against a union, this court has held that the time period of 10(b) is not a restriction on the NLRB's power to consider claims against a union under the NLRA: "[t]his six months filing limit is 'a statute of limitations and not a restriction on the jurisdictional powers of the Board'." NLRB …
green
Walter MacOn v. Itt Continental Baking Co., Inc. (1985)
R.B. v. Local 264, Laborer’s International Union, 529 F.2d 778, 782 (8th Cir.1976) (“The statute is clear in providing that a charge must not only be filed, it must also be served within the prescribed six-month period.”); see H.R.Rep.
green
Donald E. Howard v. Lockheed-Georgia Company, Aeronautical MacHinists Local Lodge 709 of the International (1984)
N.L.R.B. v. Local 264, Laborer’s International Union, 529 F.2d 778, 782 (8th Cir. 1976) (“The statute is clear in providing that a charge must not only be filed, it must also be served within the prescribed six-month period.”); see H.R.Rep.
“The statute is clear in providing that a charge must not only be filed, it must also be served within the prescribed six-month period.”
green
National Labor Relations Board v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 453 (1984)
See Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 , 395 n. 11, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 1133 , 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982); NLRB v. Local 264, Laborers’Int'l Union, 529 F.2d 778, 785 (8th Cir.1976). 8 .
NLRB v. Local 264, Laborers’ International Union, 529 F.2d 778, 786 (8th Cir. 1976).
green
Nos. 79-1851, 80-1012 (1980)
NLRB v. Local 264, Laborers' International Union, 529 F.2d 778, 786 (8th Cir. 1976).
green
National Labor Relations Board, and Elmsford Sheet Metal Works, Inc., Intervenor v. Sheet Metal Workers Inter… (1978)
We agree with the other courts which have held that contributions to *398 industry promotion funds are not a mandatory subject for bargaining, see NLRB v. Local 264, Laborers, 529 F.2d 778, 786 (8th Cir. 1976); NLRB v. Floor Decorators Local 2265, 317 F.2d 269 (6th Cir. 1963).
green
Mary P. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., Air Line Pilots Association, Non-Aligned Party. Mary P. Laffey v.… (1977)
Co., 179 F.2d 504 , 506-507 (5th Cir. 1950); NLRB v. Local 264, Laborers' Int'l Union, 529 F.2d 778, 781-785 (8th Cir. 1976).
green
Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. (1976)
Co., 179 F.2d 504 , 506-507 (5th Cir. 1950); NLRB v. Local 264, Laborers’ Int’l Union, 529 F.2d 778, 781-785 (8th Cir. 1976).
green
Skrobacz v. International Harvester (1984)
NLRB v. Complas Industries, Inc., 714 F.2d 729, 732-33 (7th Cir.1983); NLRB v. Local 264, Laborers’ International Union of North America, 529 F.2d 778, 782 (8th Cir.1976). 7 .
NLRB v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 38, 575 F.2d 394, 397 (2d Cir. 1978); NLRB v. Local 264, Laborers’ Int’l, 529 F.2d 778, 786 (8th Cir. 1976); NLRB v. Floor Decorators Local 2265, 317 F.2d 269 , 270 (6th Cir. 1963).
green
Kelley v. NLRB (1996)
See NLRB v. Local ___ ______________ 264, Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am., 529 F.2d 778, 783 (8th _____________________________________ Cir. 1976); see also NLRB v. Warrensburg Bd. & Paper Corp., ___ ____ ______________________________________ 340 F.2d 920, 925 (2d Cir. 1965)("Only proof of extraordinary circumstances will cause the reviewing court to find that strict compliance with the Board's regulations was not required.").
Id. § 101.8; See NLRB v. Local 264 Laborers' International Union, 529 F.2d 778 (CA8, 1976).
green
Kelley v. NLRB (1996)
See NLRB v. Local 264, Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am., 529 F.2d 778, 783 (8th Cir. 1976); see also NLRB v. Warrensburg Bd. & Paper Corp., 340 F.2d 920, 925 (2d Cir. 1965)("Only proof of extraordinary circumstances will cause the reviewing court to find that strict compliance with the Board's regulations was not required.").
green
Christine Kelley v. National Labor Relations Board (1996)
See NLRB v. Local 264, Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., 529 F.2d 778, 783 (8th Cir.1976); see also NLRB v. Warrensburg Bd. & Paper Corp., 340 F.2d 920, 925 (2d Cir.1965) (“Only proof of extraordinary circumstances will cause the reviewing court to find that strict compliance with the Board’s regulations was not required.”).
green
Radisson Plaza Minneapolis v. National Labor Relations Board, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Intern… (1993)
See NLRB v. Local 264, Laborers' Int'l Union, 529 F.2d 778, 785 (8th Cir.1976); American Oil Co. v. NLRB, 602 F.2d 184, 186 (8th Cir.1979). 27 Radisson responds that it bargained over the changes before it made them.
See NLRB v. Local 264, Laborers’ Int’l Union, 529 F.2d 778, 785 (8th Cir.1976); American Oil Co. v. NLRB, 602 F.2d 184, 186 (8th Cir.1979).
See N.L.R.B. v. Local 264, Laborers International Union, 529 F.2d 778, 782 (8th Cir.1976) (“The statute is clear in providing that a charge must not only be filed, it must also be served within the prescribed six month period.”), quoted in Howard v. Lockheed-Georgia Co., 742 F.2d 612, 614 (11th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (holding six month service requirement applies to hybrid actions).
See NLRB v. Local 264, 529 F.2d 778, 786 (8th Cir.1976) (provision is nonmandatory if it has only “remote, indirect and incidental impact” on condition of employment); Seattle First National Bank *855 v. NLRB, 444 F.2d 30, 33 (9th Cir.1971) (same); see also Weather Tec Corp., 238 N.L.R.B. 1535 , 1536 (1978); Peerless Food Products, Inc., 236 N.L.R.B. 161 , 161 (1978) (only “material, substantial, and ... significant” unilateral changes violate § 8(a)(5)) (quoting Rust Craft …
green
Saiz v. Barham (1983)
Compare National Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 264, Laborers’ International Union of North America, 529 F.2d 778 (8th Cir.1976).
green
Kaczmarek v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority (1978)
See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Local 264, Laborers' Int'l Union of North America, 529 F. 2d 778 (8 Cir.1976); Shumate v. N.L.R.B., 452 F. 2d 717 (4 Cir.1971); A.H.