Legal Opinion

M. Conley Co. v. Anderson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 8, 2006No. 2004-1594PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Moyer, C J.

{¶ 1} This appeal asks us to consider at what point the threat of, and actual hiring of, permanent replacement workers converts a labor dispute into a lockout for purposes of R.C. 4141.29(D)(1)(a). Appellant raises three interrelated propositions of law that we discuss together.

I

{¶ 2} In the early summer of 2002, the General Truck Drivers and Helpers Union Local 92 represented approximately 44 workers at the M. Conley Company. Nearing the expiration of its collective-bargaining agreement with M. Conley, the union and the employer engaged in a series of unsuccessful negotiations for…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. National Labor Relations Board v. MacKay Radio & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Erie Forge & Steel Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  3. Baugh v. United Telephone Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Bays v. Shenango Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Hi-State Beverage Co. v. Ohio Bureau of Employment ServicesOhio Court of Appeals · 1991

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Daido Metal Bellefontaine, L.L.C. v. Dir., Ohio Department of Job & Family ServicesOhio Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. U.S. Tsubaki, Inc. v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API