A-Plus Roofing, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 265 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"
  2. Board of Trustees v. Superior Court

    119 Cal.App.3d 516 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 81 times
    In Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 531, a defamation action rather than an action arising from employee discipline, the court concluded that confidential written complaints by an employee against another employee fell within the "letters of reference" exclusion in section 1198.5. Given our holding here, we are not required to address defendants' assertion the "letters of reference" exclusion applies to the incident report in question and the identity of the coemployee who complained against Kaye.
  3. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    711 F.2d 348 (D.C. Cir. 1983)   Cited 41 times

    Nos. 82-1418 to 82-1420, 82-1743, 82-1589 and 82-1940. Argued May 5, 1983. Decided June 30, 1983. George H. Cohen, with whom Laurence Gold, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for petitioners, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, Local Union No. 6-418, AFL-CIO, et al. George J. Tichy, II, San Francisco, Cal., with whom Robert K. Carrol, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner, Borden Chemical, A Division of Borden, Inc. Howard A. Crawford, with whom Jack D. Rowe, Kansas City, Mo., was on brief, for petitioner

  4. San Diego Newspaper Guild, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    548 F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1977)   Cited 50 times
    Rejecting a union's claim for information when the CBA was not up for renewal for two years and there was no evidence of contract negotiations
  5. N.L.R.B. v. Associated General Contractors

    633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980)   Cited 33 times

    No. 79-7484. Argued and Submitted September 9, 1980. Decided October 16, 1980. Rehearing Denied December 22, 1980. Jerrold J. Wohlgemuth, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. James P. Watson, Los Angeles, Cal. (on brief), for respondent. Victor J. Van Bourg, Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg Roger, San Francisco, Cal., for intervenor. On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before WRIGHT and POOLE, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, Senior District Judge. Of the District of

  6. Curtiss-Wright, Wright Aero. Div. v. N.L.R.B

    347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965)   Cited 55 times
    Noting the Board has "considerable leeway in amplifying or expanding certain details not specifically set forth in the complaint if they accord with the general substance of the complaint"
  7. Prudential Insurance Company of Am. v. N.L.R.B

    412 F.2d 77 (2d Cir. 1969)   Cited 34 times
    Recognizing that bargaining obligation "extends to . . . the administration of [CBAs] already adopted"
  8. Procter Gamble Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B

    603 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1979)   Cited 17 times

    No. 78-1716. Submitted March 12, 1979. Decided August 23, 1979. Harold S. Freeman of Dinsmore, Shohl, Coates Deupree, Cincinnati, Ohio, argued and Michael S. Glassman, Cincinnati, Ohio, on appendix and briefs, for petitioner. Edward S. Dorsey, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. argued, and Andrew E. Tranovich, Atty., John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel; John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel; Robert E. Allen, Acting Assoc. Gen. Counsel; and Elliott Moore, Deputy Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C.,

  9. Intern. U. of Electrical, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    648 F.2d 18 (D.C. Cir. 1980)   Cited 9 times

    Nos. 78-2067, 78-2262, 79-1682, 79-1892, 79-2563 and 80-1181 to 80-1183. Argued May 28, 1980. Decided November 28, 1980. As Modified on Rehearing January 22, 1981. Winn Newman, with whom Lawrence Gold, Richard B. Sobol, and Michael B. Trister, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC as petitioner in Nos. 78-2067 and 79-1682 and intervenor in Nos. 78-2262, 79-1892, 79-2563, and 80-1181. James G. Mauro, Jr., New York City, entered

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, Inc.

    639 F.2d 1344 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 7 times
    Finding that unions often have a duty "to represent both union and non-union members . . . [and this duty] extends not only to the negotiations for an agreement, but also to the enforcement of the provisions of the agreement."