Haas Electric, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Co.
396 U.S. 258 (1969) Cited 184 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the NLRB "is not required to place the consequences of its own delay, even if inordinate, upon wronged employees to the benefit of wrongdoing employers."
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"
International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988) Cited 119 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding review of the Board's decision to apply a new rule of law retrospectively is deferential and that the Board's ruling will be disturbed only if it wreaks manifest injustice
C.E.K Indus Mechanical Contractors v. N.L.R.B
921 F.2d 350 (1st Cir. 1990) Cited 57 times
Adopting Deklewa “as the law in this circuit”
Sheet Metal Workers' Inter'l v. Herre Bros
201 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 1999) Cited 40 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the employer acted inconsistently with its noticed intent to withdraw from group bargaining where employer repeatedly requested information and spoke with negotiators concerning a contract to take effect after the date of withdrawal
Local 58 Pension Trust Fund v. Gary's Elec
227 F.3d 646 (6th Cir. 2000) Cited 28 times
Holding the defendant company failed to establish fraud in the execution where its argument "basically comes down to [the company owner's] claim that he was ignorant of the type of arrangement to which he was agreeing when he signed" the collective bargaining agreement at issue, but "failed to demonstrate that [he] carried out his basic responsibility to review" the agreement
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Goodless Elec. Co.
124 F.3d 322 (1st Cir. 1997) Cited 9 times
Reading Board precedent to require that "when a union claims it has attained majority status and the parties, based on that claim, agree to a Section 9 relationship, the employer must challenge that status within a reasonable period of time (six months), or be bound by its agreement"
N.L.R.B. v. Hartman
774 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 11 times 1 Legal Analyses
Nos. 84-7486, 84-7786. Argued and Submitted May 14, 1985. Decided October 24, 1985. McCarthy, Johnson Miller, John J. Davis, San Francisco, Cal., Kenneth Hipp, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Thierman, Simpson Cook, Mark R. Thierman, Ronald W. Brown, Sacramento, Cal., for respondent. Application for Enforcement and Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before CHOY, TANG and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: In this consolidated appeal
N.L.R.B. v. Black
709 F.2d 939 (5th Cir. 1983) Cited 8 times
No. 82-4233. July 18, 1983. Elliott Moore, Andrew F. Tranovich, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Joel J. Reinfeld, Houston, Tex., for respondents. Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before RUBIN, GARZA and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This proceeding is a petition by the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of an order finding respondents guilty of unfair labor practices. 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). The
N.L.R.B. v. Callier
630 F.2d 595 (8th Cir. 1980) Cited 9 times
In NLRB v. Callier, 630 F.2d 595 (8th Cir. 1980), the court indicated that the Board's rules may be too narrow and that interim agreements coupled with strikes might well fragment a bargaining unit so as to justify withdrawal.

Haas Electric, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

Holding that the NLRB "is not required to place the consequences of its own delay, even if inordinate, upon wronged employees to the benefit of wrongdoing employers."

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"

Holding review of the Board's decision to apply a new rule of law retrospectively is deferential and that the Board's ruling will be disturbed only if it wreaks manifest injustice

Adopting Deklewa “as the law in this circuit”

Holding that the employer acted inconsistently with its noticed intent to withdraw from group bargaining where employer repeatedly requested information and spoke with negotiators concerning a contract to take effect after the date of withdrawal

Reading Board precedent to require that "when a union claims it has attained majority status and the parties, based on that claim, agree to a Section 9 relationship, the employer must challenge that status within a reasonable period of time (six months), or be bound by its agreement"

In NLRB v. Callier, 630 F.2d 595 (8th Cir. 1980), the court indicated that the Board's rules may be too narrow and that interim agreements coupled with strikes might well fragment a bargaining unit so as to justify withdrawal.