§
Drexel Co.

6 Cited authorities

  1. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Trades Council

    485 U.S. 568 (1988)   Cited 733 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union’s distribution of handbills at the entrances of a shopping mall was not threatening, coercing, or restraining within meaning of section 8(b) because there had been "no violence, picketing, or patrolling," and "no suggestion that the leaflets had any coercive effect on customers of the mall"

  2. Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Carpenters

    436 U.S. 180 (1978)   Cited 556 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that both state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably protected under § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA

  3. Hudgens v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    424 U.S. 507 (1976)   Cited 548 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding picketers "did not have a First Amendment right to enter [a privately owned] shopping center for the purpose of advertising their strike"

  4. Lechmere, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    502 U.S. 527 (1992)   Cited 156 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent

  5. Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.

    351 U.S. 105 (1956)   Cited 294 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot

  6. Sparks Nugget, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    968 F.2d 991 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 19 times
    In Sparks Nugget, the Ninth Circuit went further by finding that the inaccessibility exception does not apply at all in situations where customers, and not employees, are the target audience; alternatively, the court stated that, even if the exception were applicable, Lechmere would require a finding that the intended audience is presumptively not inaccessible "because the targets of the union protest do not reside on the employer's property."