George Koch & Sons, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 265 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
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
N.L.R.B. v. Don Burgess Const. Corp.
596 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1979) Cited 101 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that section 10(b) limitations period begins to run when the employee "discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the acts constituting the alleged [violation]"
San Diego Newspaper Guild, Etc. v. N.L.R.B
548 F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1977) Cited 50 times
Rejecting a union's claim for information when the CBA was not up for renewal for two years and there was no evidence of contract negotiations
N.L.R.B. v. Associated General Contractors
633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980) Cited 33 times
No. 79-7484. Argued and Submitted September 9, 1980. Decided October 16, 1980. Rehearing Denied December 22, 1980. Jerrold J. Wohlgemuth, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. James P. Watson, Los Angeles, Cal. (on brief), for respondent. Victor J. Van Bourg, Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg Roger, San Francisco, Cal., for intervenor. On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before WRIGHT and POOLE, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, Senior District Judge. Of the District of
Procter Gamble Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B
603 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1979) Cited 17 times
No. 78-1716. Submitted March 12, 1979. Decided August 23, 1979. Harold S. Freeman of Dinsmore, Shohl, Coates Deupree, Cincinnati, Ohio, argued and Michael S. Glassman, Cincinnati, Ohio, on appendix and briefs, for petitioner. Edward S. Dorsey, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. argued, and Andrew E. Tranovich, Atty., John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel; John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel; Robert E. Allen, Acting Assoc. Gen. Counsel; and Elliott Moore, Deputy Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C.,
Teleprompter Corp. v. N.L.R.B
570 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1977) Cited 14 times
In Teleprompter Corp. v. NLRB, 570 F.2d 4, 9 (1st Cir. 1977), this court held, "[w]hen the employer itself puts profitability in contention — as by asserting an inability to pay an increase in wages — information to substantiate the employer's position has to be disclosed."

George Koch & Sons, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

Approving "discovery-type standard"

Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.

Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

N.L.R.B. v. Don Burgess Const. Corp.

Holding that section 10(b) limitations period begins to run when the employee "discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the acts constituting the alleged [violation]"

San Diego Newspaper Guild, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

Rejecting a union's claim for information when the CBA was not up for renewal for two years and there was no evidence of contract negotiations

N.L.R.B. v. Associated General Contractors

Procter Gamble Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B

Teleprompter Corp. v. N.L.R.B

In Teleprompter Corp. v. NLRB, 570 F.2d 4, 9 (1st Cir. 1977), this court held, "[w]hen the employer itself puts profitability in contention — as by asserting an inability to pay an increase in wages — information to substantiate the employer's position has to be disclosed."