13 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board
380 U.S. 300 (1965) Cited 350 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful
H. K. Porter Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
397 U.S. 99 (1970) Cited 222 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that the NLRB is "without power to compel a company or a union to agree to any substantive contractual provision of a collective-bargaining agreement."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.
360 U.S. 301 (1959) Cited 106 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred
N.L.R.B. v. Overnite Transp. Co.
938 F.2d 815 (7th Cir. 1991) Cited 23 timesHolding that employer engaged in surface bargaining despite the fact employer had attended six bargaining sessions with union, commented on proposals, offered counterproposals, and maintained bargaining stance that had at least some merit, because vice president of employer expressly stated that employer would not sign contract with union, openly threatened to shut down terminal in order to defeat union, and implied that employer would force strike situation and permanently dismiss those employees who left to join picket lines
Huck Mfg. Co. v. NLRB
693 F.2d 1176 (5th Cir. 1983) Cited 29 timesFinding of no impasse supported by fact that "Union's chief negotiator testified that he never felt the parties were at an impasse"
N.L.R.B. v. Complas Industries, Inc.
714 F.2d 729 (7th Cir. 1983) Cited 24 timesNo. 81-2155. Submitted July 6, 1983. Petitioner has filed a statement asking this Court to enforce the Board's order without hearing oral argument. The Court notified respondent that it might file a "Statement as to Need of Oral Argument." Respondent has filed such a statement stating that it would prefer oral argument unless the Court is of the opinion that the facts and arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and the record and the court's decisional process would not significantly be
Douds v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n
241 F.2d 278 (2d Cir. 1957) Cited 64 timesIn Douds v. International Longshoremen's Association, 241 F.2d 278 (2d Cir. 1957), we upheld the district court's granting of a preliminary injunction sought by the Board against a union.
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
858 F.2d 756 (D.C. Cir. 1988) Cited 10 timesNo. 87-1189. Argued February 12, 1988. Decided September 30, 1988. Robert G. Rothstein, of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Michael N. Katz, Philadelphia, Pa., was on the brief, for petitioner. Bernard N. Katz, Philadelphia, Pa., also entered an appearance for petitioner. Linda Dreeben, Attorney, N.L.R.B., with whom Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel and Victoria A. Higman, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were on
Latrobe Steel Co. v. N.L.R.B
630 F.2d 171 (3d Cir. 1980) Cited 17 timesHolding that impasse is not the test under Borg-Warner
Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 901 Cited 5,324 times 53 Legal AnalysesHolding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication