11 Cited authorities
EPIC Sys. Corp. v. Lewis
138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) Cited 969 times 169 Legal AnalysesHolding that, under Concepcion , "courts may not allow a contract defense to reshape traditional individualized arbitration" and "a rule seeking to declare individualized arbitration proceedings off limits" is preempted by the FAA
Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board
379 U.S. 203 (1964) Cited 731 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
460 U.S. 693 (1983) Cited 311 times 8 Legal AnalysesHolding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights
Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.
356 U.S. 342 (1958) Cited 296 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."
N.L.R.B. v. Hardesty Co., Inc.
308 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2002) Cited 12 timesNoting that hardline bargaining positions can be evidence that an employer "had no intention of reaching an agreement"
Rock-Tenn Servs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
594 F. App'x 897 (9th Cir. 2014)No. 12-70516 No. 12-70934 11-25-2014 ROCK-TENN SERVICES, INC., formerly known as Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, TEAMSTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 2, LOCAL 388-M, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Respondent-Intervenor. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, TEAMSTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO 2, LOCAL 388-M, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Petitioner-Intervenor, v. ROCK-TENN SERVICES,
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. N.L.R.B
318 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2003) Cited 7 timesNoting that demonstration of economic exigency justifies prompt implementation of a company's proposals
Hill-Rom Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
957 F.2d 454 (7th Cir. 1992) Cited 12 timesNos. 89-3721, 90-1236. Argued November 2, 1990. Decided March 6, 1992. William R. Stewart, N.L.R.B., Contempt Litigation Branch, Aileen A. Armstrong, Robert I. Tendrich (argued), N.L.R.B., Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, D.C. William T. Little, James S. Robles, N.L.R.B., Region 25, Indianapolis, Ind., for N.L.R.B. Kenneth J. Yerkes, Robert K. Bellamy (argued), Barnes Thornburg, Indianapolis, Ind., for Hill-Rom Co., Inc. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board
Murphy Diesel Company v. N.L.R.B
454 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1971) Cited 14 timesIn Murphy Diesel Co. v. NLRB, 454 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1971), the court emphasized that the "right to impose work rules and discipline" was not a part of the contract or the negotiations leading to it.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.
444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971) Cited 3 times 3 Legal AnalysesNo. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,092 times 34 Legal AnalysesFinding 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"