Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

National Labor Relations Board v. Empire Gas, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided December 5, 1977No. 76-2060Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBarrett, Circuit Judge

I concur in that part of the majority opinion which holds that the mailing by Cooper of his letters to fellow drivers did come within the protection of § 7 of the Act because it did call for collective activities of all of Empire’s drivers at some 112 plants. I dissent from that part of the opinion which holds that under the circumstances of this case Cooper’s attempts to organize unannounced work stoppages without first submitting his grievance to Empire about the proposed new Bonus Growth Plan did not deprive him of § 7 protection in terms of the affirmative relief ordered by the Board, i.…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Lodge 76, International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Wisconsin Employment Relations CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. American Ship Building Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. National Labor Relations Board v. Insurance Agents' International UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  4. National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
  5. H. K. Porter Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1970

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API