§

Irving Ready Mix, Inc.

25-CA-031485 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 17, 2010)
Irving Ready Mix, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    117 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that, "[b]ecause affirmative bargaining orders interfere with the employee free choice that is a core principle of the Act," we "view them with suspicion" and demand special justification for them

  3. S F Market St. Healthcare LLC v. N.L.R.B

    570 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2009)   Cited 10 times

    No. 07-1439, 07-1502. Argued November 17, 2008. Decided June 30, 2009. John H. Douglas argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner. Amy H. Ginn, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ronald E. Meisburg, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Jill A. Griffin, Supervisory Attorney. Meredith L. Jason and Jason Walta, Attorneys, entered appearances. Before:

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Hardesty Co., Inc.

    308 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2002)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that violations of § 8 of the Act “send the message to the employees that their union is ineffectual, impotent, and unable to effectively represent them”

  5. United Food C. Workers I. U. v. N.L.R.B

    768 F.2d 1463 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 29 times
    Finding successorship despite difference in some management personnel

  6. DTR Industries, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    39 F.3d 106 (6th Cir. 1994)   Cited 16 times
    In DTR I, the predictions made were about possible lost business in the face of unionization, contained in a letter from the employer's president to its employees shortly before a union election.

  7. Pergament United Sales, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 20 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "due process is satisfied when a complaint gives a respondent fair notice . . . and when the conduct implicated in the alleged violation has been fully and fairly litigated"

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Hudson River Aggregates

    639 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1981)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that the NLRB's bargaining unit determinations are rarely to be disturbed unless arbitrary, unreasonable, or not supported by substantial evidence.

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Los Angeles New Hospital

    640 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 8 times

    No. 80-7073. Argued and Submitted November 5, 1980. Decided March 6, 1981. Susan L. Dolin, Richard M. Fischl, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Catherine Hagen, O'Melveny Myers, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before WRIGHT and TANG, Circuit Judges, and HANSON, Senior District Judge. The Honorable William C. Hanson, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern and Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Lumber and Mill Employers Ass'n

    736 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1984)

    No. 83-7117. Argued and Submitted April 10, 1984. Decided June 27, 1984. Howard Perlstein, NLRB, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. A.K. Abraham, Robert M. Cassel, Berman, Cassel Carter, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. On Application for Enforcement of An Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before SNEED and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge. Honorable James M. Burns, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. SNEED, Circuit Judge: