E.I. DuPont De Nemours (Edge Moor Plant)

14 Cited authorities

Mathews v. Eldridge
424 U.S. 319 (1976) Cited 16,063 times 43 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal procedural due process claims are subject to a balancing test, not heightened scrutiny
Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co.
339 U.S. 306 (1950) Cited 10,493 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that due process requires a hearing "appropriate to the nature of the case"
Edison Co. v. Labor Board
305 U.S. 197 (1938) Cited 19,302 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay
Armstrong v. Manzo
380 U.S. 545 (1965) Cited 2,601 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that failure to give proper notice violates "the rudimentary demands of due process of law"
Richards v. Jefferson County
517 U.S. 793 (1996) Cited 525 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding application of preclusion violated due process where there were neither special procedures to protect nonparties' interests or an understanding by the initial plaintiffs that their suit was brought in representative capacity
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"
Auto Workers v. Scofield
382 U.S. 205 (1965) Cited 111 times
Recognizing intervenor interest in avoiding future deference whether "as a matter of stare decisis or comity"
International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., Communications Equipment & Systems Division v. Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
419 U.S. 428 (1975) Cited 76 times
Holding that the result of a hearing under § 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act was not a final disposition with determinate consequences that fell within the definition of "order" under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 551
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
682 F.3d 65 (D.C. Cir. 2012) Cited 17 times
Explaining that the NLRB must "give a reasoned justification for departing from its precedent"
Indep. Elec. Contractors of Houston, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
720 F.3d 543 (5th Cir. 2013) Cited 11 times
Recognizing "a futility exception"—in a decision not cited by Chipotle—because, among other reasons, the Board had already "discussed" and "preemptively denied" the potential objection, so filing a motion to reconsider would have been "an empty formality"
Section 160 - Prevention of unfair labor practices
29 U.S.C. § 160 Cited 7,061 times 23 Legal Analyses
Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,092 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"
Section 554 - Adjudications
5 U.S.C. § 554 Cited 1,043 times 31 Legal Analyses
Granting authority to agencies to "issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty."

E.I. DuPont De Nemours (Edge Moor Plant)

14 Cited authorities

Holding that federal procedural due process claims are subject to a balancing test, not heightened scrutiny

Holding that due process requires a hearing "appropriate to the nature of the case"

Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

Holding that failure to give proper notice violates "the rudimentary demands of due process of law"

Holding application of preclusion violated due process where there were neither special procedures to protect nonparties' interests or an understanding by the initial plaintiffs that their suit was brought in representative capacity

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"

Recognizing intervenor interest in avoiding future deference whether "as a matter of stare decisis or comity"

Holding that the result of a hearing under § 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act was not a final disposition with determinate consequences that fell within the definition of "order" under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 551

Explaining that the NLRB must "give a reasoned justification for departing from its precedent"

Recognizing "a futility exception"—in a decision not cited by Chipotle—because, among other reasons, the Board had already "discussed" and "preemptively denied" the potential objection, so filing a motion to reconsider would have been "an empty formality"

Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

Granting authority to agencies to "issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty."