Bakersfield Californian

7 Cited authorities

Bradley v. Richmond School Board
416 U.S. 696 (1974) Cited 1,464 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an appellate court must apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision," unless such application would work a manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary
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"
Labor Board v. Crompton Mills
337 U.S. 217 (1949) Cited 102 times
Holding unlawful unilateral changes significantly different from "any which the employer has proposed" during bargaining
Facet Enterprises, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
907 F.2d 963 (10th Cir. 1990) Cited 30 times
In Facet Enterprises, we reasoned "[t]he policies underlying [§ 160(e)], i.e., notice, efficiency and providing the Board with the first opportunity to consider a claim, would have been undermined had the Supreme Court allowed judicial review" in Woelke & Romero and Garment Workers' Union.
McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
131 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1997) Cited 11 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that agencies are entitled to deviate from reasoning used in prior decisions
Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
216 F.3d 109 (D.C. Cir. 2000) Cited 8 times 2 Legal Analyses
Granting petition for review because Board conclusion constituted legal error
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,092 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

Bakersfield Californian

7 Cited authorities

Bradley v. Richmond School Board

Holding that "an appellate court must apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision," unless such application would work a manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary

Labor Board v. Katz

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"

Labor Board v. Crompton Mills

Holding unlawful unilateral changes significantly different from "any which the employer has proposed" during bargaining

Facet Enterprises, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

In Facet Enterprises, we reasoned "[t]he policies underlying [§ 160(e)], i.e., notice, efficiency and providing the Board with the first opportunity to consider a claim, would have been undermined had the Supreme Court allowed judicial review" in Woelke & Romero and Garment Workers' Union.

McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

Holding that agencies are entitled to deviate from reasoning used in prior decisions

Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

Granting petition for review because Board conclusion constituted legal error

Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"