§

Allied Signal, Inc.

330 N.L.R.B. 1201 (N.L.R.B. 2000)
Allied Signal, Inc.

18 Cited authorities

  1. Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass

    404 U.S. 157 (1971)   Cited 630 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit

  2. Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board

    379 U.S. 203 (1964)   Cited 731 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

  3. Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    460 U.S. 693 (1983)   Cited 311 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights

  4. First National Maintenance Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    452 U.S. 666 (1981)   Cited 269 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer has no duty to bargain over a decision to shut down part of its business purely for economic reasons

  5. National Woodwork Manufacturers Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    386 U.S. 612 (1967)   Cited 392 times
    Holding that union employees' refusal to install third-party manufacturer's product was not prohibited under § 158(b)(B), because it was an action "pressuring the [union members'] employer for agreements regulating relations between [the employer] and his own employees"

  6. Teamsters Union v. Oliver

    358 U.S. 283 (1959)   Cited 166 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Teamsters v. Oliver, 358 U.S. 283 (1959), we held that a state antitrust law could not be used to challenge an employer-union agreement. Justice White's opinion in Jewel Tea explains, however, that Oliver held only that "[a]s the agreement did not embody a `"remote and indirect approach to the subject of wages'... but a direct frontal attack upon a problem thought to threaten the maintenance of the basic wage structure established by the collective bargaining contract,' [358 U.S.], at 294, the paramount federal policy of encouraging collective bargaining proscribed application of the state law.

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

    385 U.S. 421 (1967)   Cited 117 times
    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”

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n

    447 U.S. 490 (1980)   Cited 65 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Longshoremen, 447 U.S. 490 (1980) (ILA I), we reviewed the National Labor Relations Board's conclusion that the Rules and their enforcement constituted unlawful secondary activity under §§ 8(b)(4)(B) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4) (B) and 158(e).

  9. Power Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    40 F.3d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1994)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that coincident timing and uncontested § 8 violations was sufficient evidence to support Board's finding

  10. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 150-A v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    1 F.3d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1993)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court may not certify a class without ruling that each Rule 23 requirement is met, even if a requirement overlaps with a merits issue

  11. Section 6621 - Determination of rate of interest

    26 U.S.C. § 6621   Cited 1,873 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions