29 U.S.C. § 168

Validation of certificates and other Board actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

No petition entertained, no investigation made, no election held, and no certification issued by the National Labor Relations Board, under any of the provisions of section 159 of this title, shall be invalid by reason of the failure of the Congress of Industrial Organizations to have complied with the requirements of section 159(f), (g), or (h) of this title prior to December 22, 1949, or by reason of the failure of the American Federation of Labor to have complied with the provisions of section 159(f), (g), or (h) of this title prior to November 7, 1947: Provided, That no liability shall be imposed under any provision of this chapter upon any person for failure to honor any election or certificate referred to above, prior to October 22, 1951: Provided, however, That this proviso shall not have the effect of setting aside or in any way affecting judgments or decrees heretofore entered under section 160(e) or (f) of this title and which have become final.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1952–2017 · leading case: Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd, 461 U.S. 260 (1983).
Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd, 461 U.S. 260 (1983). “Such clauses are lawful under the construction industry proviso of § 8(e) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 168 (e). As we said in Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, 473 U.S. 61 (1985). “” 29 U. S. C. § 168 (b)(4)(B). Some of the unfair labor charges in these cases were filed due to cessations of business with off-pier employers by marine shipping companies after the companies were fined by the ILA for allowing “shortstoppers” and warehousers to handle…”
Int'l Union, United Auto., Aircraft & Agric. Implement Workers v. Russell, 356 U.S. 634 (1958). “141 , 29 U. S. C. § 168 (b)(1)(A). Among the instructions given to the jury were the following requested by petitioners: “5.”
Altheus Richardson, Gilberto Miranda v. United Steelworkers of Am., 864 F.2d 1162 (5th Cir. 1989). “Because duty of fair representation claims are implied from sections 8(b) and 9(a) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 168 (b), 159(a), which are federal laws regulating commerce, there is original federal jurisdiction of such claims under section 1337.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Boeing Co., 412 U.S. 67 (1973). “141 , 29 U. S. C. § 168 (b)(1)(A). Section 7 provides: “Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the…”
Cent. Transp., Inc., Cent. Cartage, Co. & Big John Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 997 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir. 1993). “The ALJ’s interpretation of Carr’s statements finds more than adequate support in the record, and we enforce the Board’s order enjoining future threats.”
Rabouin v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 195 F.2d 906 (2d Cir. 1952). “This case comes to us on petition to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board in so far as it dismissed a complaint charging a union with- unfair labor practices under § 8(b) (2), (b) (4) (A), and (b) (6) of the National Labor Relations Act, as…”
J. Huizinga Cartage Co., Inc. & Simpson Motor Transp., Inc., Single Emp. &/or Jt. Employers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 941 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1991). “29 U.S.C. § 168 (a)(1) and (3). The AU concluded that the Company violated sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by: (1) laying off Richardson and Toles; and (2) by directing that Richardson, Toles, and Atkins sign subcontractors affidavits in order to be allowed to work.”
Katz v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 196 F.2d 411 (9th Cir. 1952). “534, 29 U.S.C.A. § 168 setting aside the requirement of a union-authorization election as a pre-requisite to the execution of a union-shop agreement does not affect these proceedings.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Harbison-Fischer Mfg. Co., 304 F.2d 738 (5th Cir. 1962). “Shortly afterwards the Second Circuit applied the same rule, holding that: “[Ijnquiries made by the manager concerning what was being done in behalf of the union, and statements as to his not liking the union, to the extent that they constituted no threat of intimidation, or…”
Rawlings v. Rawlings, 460 S.E.2d 581 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). “4 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 168 and Fla. Stat. Ann. § 447.”
Lance v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 3d 147 (D.D.C. 2017). “discourage membership in any labor organization,” 29 U.S.C. § 168 (a)(3). Specifically, he con- *159 tends that Mr.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.