Flamingo Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC

9 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.
465 U.S. 822 (1984) Cited 206 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection
Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
437 U.S. 556 (1978) Cited 196 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity
Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962) Cited 298 times
Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"
Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith
487 U.S. 1205 (1988) Cited 105 times 6 Legal Analyses
Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption
Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.
370 U.S. 9 (1962) Cited 206 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections
Bourne v. N.L.R.B
332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964) Cited 93 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.
Prill v. N.L.R.B
835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987) Cited 27 times 8 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”
Hotel Emp. Restaurant Emp. Un. v. N.L.R.B
760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 26 times 6 Legal Analyses
Affirming Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176
N.L.R.B. v. Curwood Inc.
397 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2005) Cited 4 times 1 Legal Analyses
Discussing differences between expert and lay testimony and concluding that agent's testimony about firearms collection was expert testimony, as it was based on his "training and experience"

Flamingo Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC

9 Cited authorities

Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

Affirming Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176

Discussing differences between expert and lay testimony and concluding that agent's testimony about firearms collection was expert testimony, as it was based on his "training and experience"