10 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal AnalysesHolding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
Ford Motor Co. (Chicago Stamping Plant) v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
441 U.S. 488 (1979) Cited 288 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that proposal concerning in-plant cafeteria prices was within duty to bargain despite fact that prices were set by third-party supplier rather than employer
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.
465 U.S. 822 (1984) Cited 206 times 9 Legal AnalysesHolding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection
N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 357 times 46 Legal AnalysesHolding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Prill v. N.L.R.B
755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985) Cited 80 times 3 Legal AnalysesIn Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thor Power Tool Co.
351 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1965) Cited 68 timesConcluding that "when the entire record is considered there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that [employee's] discharge was the result of his having presented a grievance to the management" even though employee was overheard referring to company's superintendent as "the horse's ass" and was thereafter summarily discharged
Prill v. N.L.R.B
835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987) Cited 27 times 8 Legal AnalysesRecognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”
Roadmaster Corp. v. N.L.R.B
874 F.2d 448 (7th Cir. 1989) Cited 24 timesIn Roadmaster Corp. v. NLRB, 874 F.2d 448, 451-54 (7th Cir.1989), the Seventh Circuit held that a union official who signed an employee's name to a grievance without the employee's permission was entitled to the protection of the NLRA. More recently, in OPW Fueling Components v. NLRB, 443 F.3d 490, 493-97 (6th Cir.2006), the Sixth Circuit held that a union official who signed the names of two involuntarily transferred employees to a grievance without their permission was entitled to the protection of the NLRA.
N.L.R.B. v. Pope Maintenance Corp.
573 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) Cited 34 timesNo. 77-1826. May 26, 1978. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Michael Winer, Supervisor, Jessie Etelson, Atty., John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John M. Capron, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent. Application for Enforcement of an Order of The National Labor Relations Board. Before HILL, RUBIN and VANCE, Circuit Judges. VANCE, Circuit Judge. This case is before us on application of the National Labor Relations
Union-Tribune Pub. Co. v. N.L.R.B
1 F.3d 486 (7th Cir. 1993) Cited 10 timesNos. 92-1978, 92-2348. Argued January 13, 1993. Decided July 20, 1993. E. Andrew Norwood, Howard M. Kastrinsky, King Ballow, Nashville, TN, Paul H. Duvall (argued), King Ballow, San Diego, CA, for petitioner/cross-respondent. Charles P. Donnelly, Jr., John C. Truesdale, John Fawley (argued), N.L.R.B., Contempt Litigation Branch, Aileen A. Armstrong, William M. Bernstein, N.L.R.B., Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, DC, Robert R. Petering, N.L.R.B., Counsel for the Gen. Counsel,