E. I. du Pont & Co.

17 Cited authorities

Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board
379 U.S. 203 (1964) Cited 731 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
460 U.S. 693 (1983) Cited 311 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights
Ford Motor Co. (Chicago Stamping Plant) v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
441 U.S. 488 (1979) Cited 288 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that proposal concerning in-plant cafeteria prices was within duty to bargain despite fact that prices were set by third-party supplier rather than employer
First National Maintenance Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
452 U.S. 666 (1981) Cited 269 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer has no duty to bargain over a decision to shut down part of its business purely for economic reasons
Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
440 U.S. 301 (1979) Cited 228 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores
Genetics Institute, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc.
502 U.S. 856 (1991) Cited 80 times
Holding that Connecticut's overtime wage law is not preempted by FLSA
Harmonay Inc. v. Binks Mfg. Co.
762 F.2d 990 (2d Cir. 1985) Cited 61 times
Adopting Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Law § 187
Olivetti Office U.S.A., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
926 F.2d 181 (2d Cir. 1991) Cited 27 times
Denying enforcement of Board order that would serve no legitimate purpose
United States Testing Co. v. N.L.R.B
160 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 1998) Cited 18 times
Rejecting employer's contention that it had insufficient notice regarding the potential relevance of a union request for individual insurance claims information because "context is everything," and the employer "put on the table" the concern of growing health care costs

E. I. du Pont & Co.

17 Cited authorities

Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights

Holding that proposal concerning in-plant cafeteria prices was within duty to bargain despite fact that prices were set by third-party supplier rather than employer

Holding that an employer has no duty to bargain over a decision to shut down part of its business purely for economic reasons

Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores

Holding that Connecticut's overtime wage law is not preempted by FLSA

Adopting Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Law § 187

Denying enforcement of Board order that would serve no legitimate purpose

Rejecting employer's contention that it had insufficient notice regarding the potential relevance of a union request for individual insurance claims information because "context is everything," and the employer "put on the table" the concern of growing health care costs