Citation network
Belknap, Inc. Vs. Hale
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 30, 1983
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 491 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Belknap, Inc. v. HaleSearch
-
U.S. 491 (1983) Belknap, Inc. v. HaleSearch
-
and breach of contract are not preempted. Pp. 463 U. S. 498 -512. (a) The doctrine of Machinists v. WisconsinSearch
-
U. S. 499 -507. (b) Nor are respondents' causes of action preempted under San Diego Building Trade Council v. GarmonSearch
-
Relying on Linn v. PlantSearch
-
or causes of action are preempted by the NLRA. Under the first, set out in San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSearch
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. CarpentersSearch
-
Relations Board's Page 463 U. S. 499 ability to adjudicate controversies committed to it by the Act, Farmer v. CarpentersSearch
-
that the Act protects. Id. at 436 U. S. 205 . The second preemption doctrine, set out in Machinists v. WisconsinSearch
-
Machinists v. WisconsinSearch
-
Employment Relations Comm'n, supra, at 427 U. S. 140 , quoting NLRB v. Nash-FinchSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
are nullified by federal law, and its otherwise actionable misrepresentations may not be pursued. See J. I. Case Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 165 N.L.R.B. 514, 516 (1967), aff'd sub nom. Truck Drivers and Helpers Local No. 728 v. NLRBSearch
-
made to innocent replacements, that the employer was free to make and keep under federal law. J. I. Case Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
labor practices, since they could be viewed as threats to refuse to reinstate unfair labor practice strikers. See NLRB v. LaredoSearch
-
would have been forced to reinstate the strikers, rather than keep replacements on the job. Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRBSearch
-
in local law that the courts should not assume that Congress intended to preempt the application of state law. In Linn v. PlantSearch
-
even though such statements were in themselves unfair labor practices adjudicable by the Board. Likewise, in Farmer v. CarpenterSearch
-
U. S. 510 consisted of conduct that was arguably an unfair labor practice. Finally, in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. CarpentersSearch
-
Board would be concerned with the impact on strikers, not with whether the employer deceived replacements. As in Linn v. PlantSearch
-
its citizens from misrepresentations that have caused them grievous harm. It is no less true here than it was in Linn v. PlantSearch
-
concerns, cf. Farmer v. CarpentersSearch
-
conflict with the rights of either the strikers or the employer or would frustrate any policy of the federal labor laws. v. BecauseSearch
-
U. S. 469 , 420 U. S. 483 (1975), quoting Construction Laborers v. CurrySearch
-
nor does it require us to dismiss this case for want of a final judgment. Hudson Distributors, Inc. v. EliSearch
-
Abney v. UnitedSearch
-
NLRB v. MarsSearch
-
NLRB v. MurraySearch
-
H. & F. Finch Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
replacements because of commitments made to them in the course of an economic strike satisfies the requirement of NLRB v. FleetwoodSearch
-
require a different conclusion. Indeed, as indicated above, in Hot Shoppes, Inc., supra, the Board read NLRB v. MackaySearch
-
Co., 304 U. S. 333 (1938), as holding that the motive for hiring permanent replacements is irrelevant. NLRB v. ErieSearch
-
Emphasis added.) NLRB Br. at 17. This case is thus a far cry from NLRB v. TransportationSearch
-
discharge them after settlement with the union will be in much the same position as the employer in W. R. Grace & Co. v. RubberSearch
-
returning strikers of jobs committed to them by the national labor laws. As the Court said in National Licorice Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
construction of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), if reasonable, is entitled to deference from the courts. NLRB v. TransportationSearch
-
Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 165 N.L.R.B. 514, 516 (1967), aff'd sub nom. Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 728 v. NLRBSearch
-
is reasonable, or whether it is contrary to the statutory mandate or frustrates Congress' policy objectives. See FEC v. DemocraticSearch
-
NLRB v. BrownSearch
-
NLRB v. FleetwoodSearch
-
Trailer Co., 389 U. S. 375 , 389 U. S. 378 (1967), quoting NLRB v. GreatSearch
-
by the strikers. NLRB v. MackaySearch
-
Co., 304 U. S. 333 , 304 U. S. 345 (1938). Page 463 U. S. 515 See NLRB v. ErieSearch
-
of, rather than a legitimate business justification for, the power to hire permanent strike replacements. See NLRB v. ErieSearch
-
NLRB v. GisselSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Belknap, Inc. v. HaleSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial