§

F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co.

316 N.L.R.B. 1312 (N.L.R.B. 1995)
F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    440 U.S. 301 (1979)   Cited 227 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

  2. Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.

    351 U.S. 149 (1956)   Cited 223 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

  3. Gregory Marketing Corp v. Wakefern Food Corp.

    479 U.S. 821 (1986)   Cited 60 times

    No. 85-1981. October 6, 1986. ORDERS C.A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 F. 2d 92.

  4. United Steelworkers v. N.L.R.B

    983 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1993)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that factual findings may be reversed only when the record is so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find the contrary

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Harvstone Mfg. Co.

    785 F.2d 570 (7th Cir. 1986)   Cited 28 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Harvstone Mfg. Corp., 785 F.2d 570 (7th Cir.1986), that Circuit declared that claims of competitive disadvantage are “nothing more than truisms” and do not equate to an inability to pay.

  6. Graphic Communications Int. v. N.L.R.B

    977 F.2d 1168 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 14 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No. 91-3901. Argued September 25, 1992. Decided October 21, 1992. Lee W. Jackson, Martin Ganzglass, O'Donnell, Schwartz Anderson, Washington, D.C., Thomas F. Phalen, Jr. (argued), Logothetis Pence, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner. Robert J. Englehart (argued), N.L.R.B., Contempt Litigation Branch, Aileen A. Armstrong, Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Lawrence T. Zimmerman (argued), Washington, D.C., Charles M. Roesch, Dinsmore Shohl, Cincinnati, Ohio, for

  7. United Paperworkers Intern. Union v. N.L.R.B

    981 F.2d 861 (6th Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times

    No. 91-6260. Argued October 2, 1992. Decided December 2, 1992. Lynn Agee (briefed), Mark Brooks, United Paperworkers Intern. Union, Nashville, Tenn., Peter M. Fox (argued), Thomas J. Kircher, Kircher, Robinson, Cook, Newman Welch, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner. Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Peter Winkler, Joseph Oertel (argued and briefed), N.L.R.B., Office of the Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., Linda Rabin, N.L.R.B., Region 7, Detroit, Mich., for respondent. Carl E. VerBeek

  8. Teamsters Local Union No. 515 v. N.L.R.B

    906 F.2d 719 (D.C. Cir. 1990)   Cited 11 times
    Emphasizing that "rigid adherence to disadvantageous proposals may provide a basis for inferring bad faith"

  9. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co. v. N.L.R.B

    744 F.2d 536 (6th Cir. 1984)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 82-1767, 82-1903. Argued April 3, 1984. Decided September 26, 1984. Alan G. Burton, argued, E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., Legal Dept., Wilmington, Del., George E. Yund, Frost Jacobs, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner. Elliott Moore, L. Pay Wynns, argued, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before LIVELY and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges, and GIBSON, District Judge. The Honorable Benjamin F. Gibson, United

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Whitin Mach. Works

    217 F.2d 593 (4th Cir. 1954)   Cited 25 times

    No. 6883. November 18, 1954. Decided December 8, 1954. Frederick U. Reel, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, and James A. Ryan, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. Whiteford S. Blakeney, Charlotte, N.C. (Pierce Blakeney, Charlotte, N.C., on brief), for respondent. Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This is a petition by the National Labor

  11. Section 1910.133 - Eye and face protection

    29 C.F.R. § 1910.133   Cited 13 times   12 Legal Analyses

    (a)General requirements. (1) The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation. (2) The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses eye protection that provides side protection when there is a hazard from flying objects. Detachable side protectors (e.g. clip-on