Chicago Tribune Co.

29 Cited authorities

Vaca v. Sipes
386 U.S. 171 (1967) Cited 4,217 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, under the LMRA, an "individual employee has absolute right to have his grievance taken to arbitration regardless of the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc.
494 U.S. 775 (1990) Cited 177 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that Board has "considerable deference" in determining the legal rule to apply and should be upheld "as long as it is rational and consistent with the Act"
Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
440 U.S. 301 (1979) Cited 228 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union's request for employee aptitude tests was relevant to its claim, but employer's interest in preserving confidentiality was also legitimate, and disclosing the information only upon the employee's written consent was a reasonable accommodation
Rickards v. Canine Eye Registration Foundation
464 U.S. 994 (1983) Cited 190 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that the plaintiff "at all times retains the burden of persuasion"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 265 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
SCM Corp. v. Advance Business Systems & Supply Co.
397 U.S. 920 (1970) Cited 200 times 5 Legal Analyses
Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances
Wilkerson v. Texas
493 U.S. 924 (1989) Cited 104 times
Holding unsupervised release of ADEA rights permissible if knowing and voluntary
Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.
351 U.S. 149 (1956) Cited 223 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. C & C Plywood Corp.
385 U.S. 421 (1967) Cited 117 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the NLRB has the authority to interpret CBAs in the first instance where its interpretation is for the purpose of “enforc[ing] a statutory right which Congress considered necessary to allow labor and management to get on with the process of reaching fair terms and conditions of employment”
H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 514 (1941) Cited 241 times 1 Legal Analyses
In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

Chicago Tribune Co.

29 Cited authorities

Holding that, under the LMRA, an "individual employee has absolute right to have his grievance taken to arbitration regardless of the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement"

Holding that Board has "considerable deference" in determining the legal rule to apply and should be upheld "as long as it is rational and consistent with the Act"

Holding that a union's request for employee aptitude tests was relevant to its claim, but employer's interest in preserving confidentiality was also legitimate, and disclosing the information only upon the employee's written consent was a reasonable accommodation

Stating that the plaintiff "at all times retains the burden of persuasion"

Approving "discovery-type standard"

Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances

Holding unsupervised release of ADEA rights permissible if knowing and voluntary

Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.