§

Central Security Services

315 N.L.R.B. 239 (N.L.R.B. 1994)
Central Security Services

17 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

    465 U.S. 822 (1984)   Cited 206 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection

  2. Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    437 U.S. 556 (1978)   Cited 196 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 357 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  4. I.A. of M. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 72 (1940)   Cited 317 times
    In International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."

  5. Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.

    309 U.S. 350 (1940)   Cited 315 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA

  6. N.L.R.B. v. S.E. Nichols, Inc.

    862 F.2d 952 (2d Cir. 1988)   Cited 30 times
    Finding that violations at various locations managed by the same district supervisor justified an order covering all locations managed by that district supervisor

  7. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 27 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

  8. Sierra Pub. Co. v. N.L.R.B

    889 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 23 times
    Discussing N.L.R.B. v. Local Union No. 1229 (Jefferson Standard ), 346 U.S. 464, 74 S.Ct. 172, 98 L.Ed. 195, and its progeny

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Oakes Mach. Corp.

    897 F.2d 84 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Listing reasonableness as one of four factors in determining whether the termination of supervisors affected terms and conditions of employees

  10. Behring Intern., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    675 F.2d 83 (3d Cir. 1982)   Cited 24 times
    In Behring International v. NLRB, supra, we held that the Board's rule shifting the burden of proof to the employer to show a legitimate reason for a discharge once a prima facie case had been made out of a discharge for engaging in protected activity was inconsistent with section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(c) (1976).