Expert Electric, Inc.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Mackay Co.

    304 U.S. 333 (1938)   Cited 535 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices
  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. Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.

    309 U.S. 350 (1940)   Cited 315 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA
  4. Resort Nursing Home v. N.L.R.B

    389 F.3d 1262 (D.C. Cir. 2004)   Cited 5 times
    In Resort Nursing Home v. NLRB, 389 F.3d 1262 (D.C. Cir. 2004), the court held that there was no collusion or conspiracy when a multiemployer association and union began negotiations for a new agreement eight months prior to the expiration of the old agreement, id. at 1271, and that the Chel La Cort rule is rational and consistent with the Act, id. at 1269.
  5. Ishikawa Gasket America, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    354 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    No. 02-1167/1310. Argued: October 21, 2003. Decided and Filed: January 7, 2004. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW AND CROSS-APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. No. 8-CA-31292. Maurice G. Jenkins (argued and briefed), Paul R. Bernard (abriefed), Jennifer K. Nowaczok (briefed), Dickinson, Wright, PLLC, Detroit, MI, for Petitioner. David Seid (argued and briefed), National Labor Relations Board, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, Aileen A. Armstrong (briefed)

  6. Rule 19 - Required Joinder of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 19   Cited 9,774 times   55 Legal Analyses
    Holding a person must be joined if disposing the action in the person's absence may leave an existing party subject to a "substantial" risk of incurring inconsistent obligations