§

D.A. Nolt, Inc.

340 N.L.R.B. 1279 (N.L.R.B. 2003)
D.A. Nolt, Inc.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Machinists Local v. Labor Board

    362 U.S. 411 (1960)   Cited 276 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

  2. Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    454 U.S. 404 (1982)   Cited 116 times
    Holding that courts must not "substitute [their] judgment for those of the Board with respect to the issues that Congress intended the Board should resolve"

  3. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988)   Cited 119 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding review of the Board's decision to apply a new rule of law retrospectively is deferential and that the Board's ruling will be disturbed only if it wreaks manifest injustice

  4. Sheet Metal Workers' Inter'l v. Herre Bros

    201 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 1999)   Cited 40 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the employer acted inconsistently with its noticed intent to withdraw from group bargaining where employer repeatedly requested information and spoke with negotiators concerning a contract to take effect after the date of withdrawal

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Hi-Way Billboards, Inc.

    500 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1974)   Cited 20 times
    Reversing Board's finding that impasse is akin to hiatus in negotiations.

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second