§

Combustion Engineering Inc

272 N.L.R.B. 957 (N.L.R.B. 1984)
Combustion Engineering Inc

8 Cited authorities

  1. Vaca v. Sipes

    386 U.S. 171 (1967)   Cited 4,209 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"

  2. 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

  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. Scofield v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    394 U.S. 423 (1969)   Cited 117 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding union rule, enforceable by fines and expulsion, imposing limitation on immediate pay that members could receive for piecework because Court found no "impairment of statutory labor policy"

  5. Wallace Corp. v. Labor Board

    323 U.S. 248 (1944)   Cited 162 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that corporation committed unfair labor practice

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Miranda Fuel Co., Inc.

    326 F.2d 172 (2d Cir. 1963)   Cited 98 times

    No. 73, Docket 26232. Argued October 21, 1963. Decided December 11, 1963. Melvin J. Welles, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Herman M. Levy, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Samuel J. Cohen, New York City (Jack Last and Cohen Weiss, New York City, on the brief), for respondent Union. Ruth

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Interboro Contractors, Inc.

    388 F.2d 495 (2d Cir. 1967)   Cited 80 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Interboro Contractors, Inc., 388 F.2d 495, 500 (2d Cir. 1967), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that the efforts of an individual employee acting alone to enforce the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement may be deemed "concerted," and thus protected, at least when the individual's interpretation of the agreement has a reasonable basis.

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

    694 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1982)   Cited 9 times
    Upholding NLRB's determination that employee's repeated statement—“I'm going to see that [expletive] fry”—was “at most ... ambiguous,” and reasoning that “however sympathetic we might be to the Company's plight, we simply cannot adopt the Company's arguments [that the comments were so extreme that they necessarily fall outside the Act's protection] because our review is restricted to the substantial evidence test”