§

Avne Systems, Inc.

331 N.L.R.B. 1352 (N.L.R.B. 2000)
Avne Systems, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

  1. Holmberg v. Armbrecht

    327 U.S. 392 (1946)   Cited 1,365 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Erie does not require federal courts to apply state tolling doctrines to federal causes of action

  2. Machinists Local v. Labor Board

    362 U.S. 411 (1960)   Cited 276 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

  3. Fitzgerald v. Seamans

    553 F.2d 220 (D.C. Cir. 1977)   Cited 134 times
    Finding no equitable tolling because appellant knew of the material facts

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Don Burgess Const. Corp.

    596 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1979)   Cited 101 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 10(b) limitations period begins to run when the employee "discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the acts constituting the alleged [violation]"

  5. National Labor Relations Bd. v. Katz's Deli

    80 F.3d 755 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 57 times
    Finding employer's challenge premature because compliance proceeding had not yet occurred

  6. Demars v. General Dynamics Corp.

    779 F.2d 95 (1st Cir. 1985)   Cited 65 times
    Explaining that even if union engaged in fraudulent concealment by failing to inform employee about the disposition of his grievance, statute of limitations was not tolled where employee lacked diligence in making independent inquiry into grievance status

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Al Bryant, Inc.

    711 F.2d 543 (3d Cir. 1983)   Cited 62 times
    Finding that "the frequent interchange of craftsman" between the two companies is "substantial evidence to support" centralized labor relations control

  8. District Lodge 64 v. N.L.R.B

    949 F.2d 441 (D.C. Cir. 1991)   Cited 25 times
    Noting that “Article III grounds” such as stare decisis and the principle that litigants in similar situation should be treated the same “are inapplicable to administrative adjudications”

  9. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    130 F.3d 1083 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 6 times

    No. 97-1026 Argued October 24, 1997 Decided December 12, 1997 Marc B. Gursky argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioners. Frederick C. Havard, Supervisory Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent, with whom Linda R. Sher, Associate General Counsel, and Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, were on the brief. Thomas C. Keeney argued the cause for intervenor Brown Sharpe Manufacturing Company, with whom William R. Powers, III was on the brief

  10. May Dept. Stores Co. v. N.L.R.B

    897 F.2d 221 (7th Cir. 1990)   Cited 10 times
    Observing that the Board compares pre- and post-merger unions for continuity by looking to the "structure, administration, officers, assets, membership, autonomy, by-laws, size, and territorial jurisdiction, with an eye toward changes in the rights and obligations of the union's leadership and membership, and in the relationships between the putative bargaining agent, its affiliate, and the employer"