Lichota v. United States

suggesting that bargaining is required whenever “the subject matter would settle any term or condition of employment, or would regulate the relations between the employer and employees” (citing NLRB v. Wooster Div. of Borg-Warner Corp., 356 U.S. 342, 350, 78 S.Ct. 718, 2 L.Ed.2d 823 (1958) | “The hiring hall is to be administered on a non-discriminatory basis as between union members and non-union members” | doctrine not applied to King Faisal’s New York bank accounts because only a United States court could compel bank to pay | a foreign decree was penal because, among other things, it ordered that property be confiscated for the benefit of the public | states do not enforce foreign penal laws as a matter of public policy | "when property confiscated is within the United States at the time of the attempted confiscation, our courts will give effect to acts of state 'only if they are consistent with the policy and law of the United States.' " (quoting Restatement (Second | “when property confiscated is within the United States at the time of the attempted confiscation, our courts will give effect to acts of state ‘only if they are consistent with the policy and law of the United States.’ ” (quoting Restatement (Second | emphasizing the equality of treatment among similarly situated taxpayers | common expiration date for union contracts