§

Brusco Tug & Barge, Inc.

359 N.L.R.B. 1099 (N.L.R.B. 2013)
Brusco Tug & Barge, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Co.

    396 U.S. 258 (1969)   Cited 184 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the NLRB "is not required to place the consequences of its own delay, even if inordinate, upon wronged employees to the benefit of wrongdoing employers."

  2. Pittsburgh Glass Co. v. Board

    313 U.S. 146 (1941)   Cited 294 times
    In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.

  3. Automotive Council v. N.L.R.B

    483 F.3d 628 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 13 times
    Concluding that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's finding that labor organization "did not have actual or constructive knowledge" of unfair labor practices

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Bakers of Paris, Inc.

    929 F.2d 1427 (9th Cir. 1991)   Cited 24 times
    Noting that "burden of proving supervisory status rests upon the party asserting it"

  5. King Elec., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    440 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2006)   Cited 6 times

    Nos. 04-1440, 05-1012. Argued February 9, 2006. Decided March 7, 2006. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Maurice Baskin argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Alan G. Ross and Lesley A. Pate. Philip A. Hostak, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Rosenfeld, Acting General Counsel at the time the brief was filed, Margery E. Lieber

  6. Scepter, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    280 F.3d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2002)   Cited 8 times
    Noting that because the party "failed to raise a particularized challenge to the bargaining order before the Board, this court has no authority to address the issue"

  7. Pearson Education, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    373 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 2004)   Cited 5 times
    Stating "clear and well-settled" principle that Board interrogates election conduct for whether "the challenged actions had a reasonable tendency to interfere with employee free choice"

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Best Products Co., Inc.

    765 F.2d 903 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 23 times
    In Best Products we stated that "while the court is not bound by the Board's view on retroactive application, it should defer to those views absent manifest injustice."

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp.

    891 F.2d 230 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 13 times
    Giving dispositive weight to the third factor, noting, “Buckley's argument fails under the third factor. There is no possibility of an inequitable result from retroactive application of the Board's new standard because the new standard works to Buckley's advantage.”

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Quinn Restaurant Corp.

    14 F.3d 811 (2d Cir. 1994)   Cited 4 times

    No. 1870, Docket 93-4078. Argued August 13, 1993. Decided January 31, 1994. Nancy J. Gottfried, N.L.R.B., Washington, DC (Jerry M. Hunter, Gen. Counsel, Yvonne T. Dixon, Acting Deputy Gen. Counsel, Nicholas E. Karatinos, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Frederick C. Havard, Supervising Atty., Marilyn O'Rourke, N.L.R.B., Washington, DC, of counsel), for petitioner. Richard G. Kass, Mineola, N Y (Rains Pogrebin, Mineola, NY, of counsel), for respondent