Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

National Labor Relations Board v. General Electric Company, and International Union of Electrical, Radio, and MacHine Workers, Afl-Cio, Intervenor

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided October 28, 1969No. 337, 338, Dockets 29502, 29576Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

(concurring and dissenting).

I .agree with my brothers that by refusing to furnish cost information and by bargaining with locals during the strike, GE violated § 8(a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. I do not believe it also violated the Act by submitting a contributory personal accident insurance plan to the Union and de*765clining to bargain about it until the time for reopening of negotiations. I think also, along lines similar to Member Jenkins’ concurring opinion, that other specific conduct of the Company, such as that in regard to the effective date of the pension plan, pp. 12-13,…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. National Labor Relations Board v. KatzSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 114Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. National Labor Relations Board v. Insurance Agents' International UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  5. International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 1291 v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1967

14 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