§

Amoco Chemical Co.

328 N.L.R.B. 1220 (N.L.R.B. 1999)
Amoco Chemical Co.

6 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. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 710 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"

  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. Young v. Standard Oil

    849 F.2d 1039 (7th Cir. 1988)   Cited 74 times
    Explaining that because "severance benefits are unaccrued, unvested benefits," an employer can amend a severance plan at any time

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Miller Brewing Company

    408 F.2d 12 (9th Cir. 1969)   Cited 17 times

    No. 22698. February 20, 1969. John D. Burgoyne (argued), Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, David C. Nevins, Washington, D.C., Paul A. Cassady, Director, NLRB, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Willard Z. Carr, Jr. (argued) of Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Before BARNES and ELY, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON, District Judge. Hon. Harry Pregerson, United States District Judge, Los Angeles

  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