§

Day & Zimmerman Services

325 N.L.R.B. 1046 (N.L.R.B. 1998)
Day & Zimmerman Services

4 Cited authorities

  1. N.L.R.B. v. ZENO TABLE CO., INC

    610 F.2d 567 (9th Cir. 1980)   Cited 29 times
    Distinguishing between the "good cause" standard found in NLRB regulations and the "extraordinary circumstances" standard in section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act and noting that "`good cause' . . . appears to be less stringent than . . . `extraordinary circumstances'"

  2. Colfor Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    838 F.2d 164 (6th Cir. 1988)   Cited 11 times
    Declining to review four contested Taft factors and concluding that substantial evidence of lack of contemporaneous understanding alone supported Board's no-impasse finding

  3. N.L.R.B. v. National Medical Hosp. of Compton

    907 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1990)   Cited 7 times

    No. 89-70054. Argued and Submitted November 16, 1989. Decided July 5, 1990. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing August 29, 1990. Frederick Havard, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. J. Richard Thesing, Menlo Park, Cal., for respondent. Petition to Review a Decision of the National Labor Relations Board. Before SCHROEDER, NELSON and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge: In this unusually protracted labor relations controversy, the National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement

  4. Van Dorn Plastic Machinery Co. v. N.L.R.B

    939 F.2d 402 (6th Cir. 1991)   Cited 4 times

    Nos. 90-6340, 90-6539. Argued July 18, 1991. Decided August 5, 1991. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied September 18, 1991. Keith A. Ashmus (argued), Carl H. Gluek, Thompson, Hine Flory, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner, cross-respondent. Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Charles P. Donnelly, Jr., John C. Truesdale, Executive Secretary, Margaret E. Luke (argued), N.L.R.B., Office of the Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., Frederick Calatrello, Director, Cleveland, Ohio, for respondent