§

American Standard Cos.

352 N.L.R.B. 644 (N.L.R.B. 2008)
American Standard Cos.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 712 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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"

  2. Certiorari Denied

    534 U.S. 818 (2001)   Cited 16 times
    Concluding employer entitled to judgment as matter of law where employee offered no evidence of number and types of positions available in local job market that did not require heavy or medium lifting

  3. Vincent Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    209 F.3d 727 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 44 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Vincent Industrial, we directed the Board to premise every bargaining order on an "explicit[ balanc[ing][of] three considerations: (1) the employees' Section 7 rights [ 29 U.S.C. § 157]; (2) whether other purposes of the [NLRA] override the rights of employees to choose their bargaining representatives; and (3) whether alternative remedies are adequate to remedy the violations of the [NLRA]]."

  4. Grinnell Fire Protection Systems v. N.L.R.B

    236 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2000)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that when, among other factors, a new negotiator was substituted, "the lack of a significant bargaining history would dictate giving the parties a fuller opportunity to effect an agreement than occurred here"

  5. Jackson v. Pollick

    941 F.2d 1209 (6th Cir. 1991)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that the contract-specification defense applied when "eighty-five pages of specifications [were] given by General Motors to defendant" detailing how to manufacture the product

  6. 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