Air Line Pilots Association, International

7 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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. C & C Plywood Corp.

    385 U.S. 421 (1967)   Cited 117 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the NLRB has the authority to interpret CBAs in the first instance where its interpretation is for the purpose of “enforc[ing] a statutory right which Congress considered necessary to allow labor and management to get on with the process of reaching fair terms and conditions of employment”
  3. American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    395 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1968)   Cited 103 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying Taft
  4. Alwin Mfg. Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    192 F.3d 133 (D.C. Cir. 1999)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the striking employees' motivation for striking is central to a finding of an unfair labor practice strike
  5. Naperville Ready Mix, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    242 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting Board did not invoke "sham transaction" doctrine where legal transfer of title was undisputed
  6. Daily News of Los Angeles v. N.L.R.B

    73 F.3d 406 (D.C. Cir. 1996)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that merit-increase program is a mandatory subject of bargaining
  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second