§

Hope Electrical Corp.

339 N.L.R.B. 933 (N.L.R.B. 2003)
Hope Electrical Corp.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass

    404 U.S. 157 (1971)   Cited 630 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit

  2. Textron Lycoming Recip. Engine Div. v. Auto. Workers

    523 U.S. 653 (1998)   Cited 212 times
    Holding that [s]ection 301 jurisdiction does not lie where plaintiff union sought declaratory judgment that a CBA was voidable

  3. 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

  4. United Ass'n Local 342, Afl-Cio v. Valley Engr

    975 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 41 times
    Affirming district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants-employers where NLRB had declined to file an unfair labor practices complaint against the defendants-employers

  5. Local Union 257 v. Sebastian Electric

    121 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir. 1997)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that job targeting program was protected by non-statutory exemption because "the Target Fund primarily affects only the parties to the collective bargaining relationship, [] the wage reimbursement arrangement at issue concerns a mandatory subject of collective bargaining (i.e., wages), and [] the arrangement is the product of bona fide arm's-length bargaining"

  6. Local Union No. 666 v. Stokes Elec. Ser., Inc., Page 415

    225 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2000)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that employer continued to be bound by contractual duty to negotiate new agreement even if union was not at § 9 representative because the union was not trying to force the employer to recognize it as an exclusive representative under § 9