§

Armstrong Machine Company, Inc.

18-CA-016276 (N.L.R.B. Oct. 7, 2005)
Armstrong Machine Company, Inc.

5 Cited authorities

  1. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 358 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  2. N.L.R.B. v. Johnnie's Poultry Co.

    344 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1965)   Cited 32 times   11 Legal Analyses
    In N.L.R.B. v. Johnnie's Poultry Co., 8 Cir., 344 F.2d 617, we recognized that an employer has no vested right to insist that union representation be established by a Board conducted election but we further held that an employer acting in good faith belief that a union lacked majority representation was not required to recognize and bargain with the union until such doubt was resolved.

  3. Section 504 - Costs and fees of parties

    5 U.S.C. § 504   Cited 659 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing payment of attorney's fees by the Government when a party prevails in a federal agency adjudication

  4. Section 102.143 - "Adversary adjudication" defined; entitlement to award; eligibility for award

    29 C.F.R. § 102.143   Cited 2 times

    (a) The term adversary adjudication, as used in this subpart, means unfair labor practice proceedings pending before the Board on a complaint and backpay proceedings under §§ 102.52 through 102.59 pending before the Board on a Notice of Hearing at any time after October 1, 1984. (b) A Respondent in an adversary adjudication who prevails in that proceeding, or in a significant and discrete substantive portion of that proceeding, and who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this section

  5. Section 102.144 - Standards for awards

    29 C.F.R. § 102.144   Cited 1 times

    (a) An eligible applicant may receive an award for fees and expenses incurred in connection with an adversary adjudication or in connection with a significant and discrete substantive portion of that proceeding, unless the position of the General Counsel over which the applicant has prevailed was substantially justified. The burden of proof that an award should not be made to an eligible applicant is on the General Counsel, who may avoid an award by showing that the General Counsel's position in