§

Bauer Group, Inc.

337 N.L.R.B. 395 (N.L.R.B. 2002)
Bauer Group, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thalbo Corp.

    171 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that the court did not actually decide the issue, but only observed that plaintiff was retired and was not aggressively looking for work, in a case where the issue to be decided was whether she had undertaken reasonable efforts to look for work

  2. Pace Industries, Inc. v. Natl. Lab. Rel. Bd.

    118 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 1997)   Cited 13 times

    No. 96-1643 Submitted December 11, 1996 Filed July 1, 1997 Myron Boe, Little Rock, AR, argued (Mark Alan Peoples, Little Rock, AR, on the brief), for Petitioners/Cross-Respondents. Bruce E. Buchanan, Little Rock, AR, argued (Frederick L. Feinstein, General Counsel, Linda Sher, Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Linda Dreeben, Supervisory Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, on the brief), for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. Petition

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Ryder System, Inc.

    983 F.2d 705 (6th Cir. 1993)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that employee was entitled to reinstatement even though the employee was terminated for conduct unrelated to his union activities (gross insubordination) because employee was wrongfully reinstated without his seniority following his participation in a sympathy strike

  4. Package Service Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    113 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    Nos. 96-2548, 96-2766 Submitted January 13, 1997 Filed May 14, 1997 Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was James A. Prozzi. Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Deborah E. Shrager of the NLRB of Washington, D.C. Appeals from the National Labor Relations Board. Before LOKEN, BRIGHT, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. LOKEN, Circuit Judge. This appeal concerns the back pay remedy under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §(s) 151 et seq

  5. Roper Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    712 F.2d 306 (7th Cir. 1983)   Cited 11 times
    In Roper, a supervisor explaining why the company could not grant merit pay reviews during negotiations with the new union told employees that they "had a beautiful deal" which they "blew" when they voted for the union.

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Hawkins Const. Co.

    857 F.2d 1224 (8th Cir. 1988)   Cited 6 times
    Rejecting Board's effort to "evade" credibility-based assessment of whether union's request for information as to Company's hiring and subcontracting practices was made in good faith or to harass Company in retaliation for suit against union

  7. Arlington Hotel Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    876 F.2d 678 (8th Cir. 1989)   Cited 4 times

    No. 88-1203. Submitted April 12, 1989. Decided June 7, 1989. Order of July 21, 1989. Russell Gunter, Little Rock, Ark., for petitioner. Robert N. Hermann, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Appeal from the National Labor Relations Board. Before ARNOLD, FAGG and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. FAGG, Circuit Judge. Arlington Hotel Company, Inc. (AHC) petitions for review of a backpay order issued by the National Labor Relations Board (the Board). The Board cross-applies for enforcement of the order. We reverse

  8. Rule 611 - Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 611   Cited 1,959 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Granting trial judge broad discretion to control witness examination

  9. Section 102.48 - No exceptions filed; exceptions filed; motions for reconsideration, rehearing, or reopening the record

    29 C.F.R. § 102.48   Cited 108 times
    Limiting reopening of the record to "newly discovered evidence" that "would require a different result"

  10. Section 102.46 - Exceptions and brief in support; answering briefs to exceptions; cross-exceptions and brief in support; answering briefs to cross-exceptions; reply briefs; failure to except; oral argument; filing requirements; amicus curiae briefs

    29 C.F.R. § 102.46   Cited 107 times
    Providing that the answering brief to exceptions "must be limited to the questions raised in the exceptions," "must present clearly the points of fact and law relied on in support of the position taken on each question," and "must specify those pages of the record which the party contends support the Judge's finding"

  11. Section 102.54 - Issuance of compliance specification; consolidation of complaint and compliance specification

    29 C.F.R. § 102.54   Cited 12 times

    (a) If it appears that controversy exists with respect to compliance with a Board order which cannot be resolved without a formal proceeding, the Regional Director may issue and serve on all parties a compliance specification in the name of the Board. The specification will contain or be accompanied by a Notice of Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at a specific place and at a time not less than 21 days after the service of the specification. (b) Whenever the Regional Director deems it necessary