369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
441 U.S. 488 (1979) Cited 288 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that proposal concerning in-plant cafeteria prices was within duty to bargain despite fact that prices were set by third-party supplier rather than employer
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."
Holding that the NLRB has the authority to interpret CBAs in the first instance where its interpretation is for the purpose of “enforc[ing] a statutory right which Congress considered necessary to allow labor and management to get on with the process of reaching fair terms and conditions of employment”
Holding that employer withheld requested documents in bad faith where union repeatedly explained why limited production was inadequate and where union signed confidentiality agreement to address employer’s concerns
In NLRB v. Unbelievable, Inc., 71 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir. 1995), we upheld the Board's finding that the employer "engaged in unfair labor practices by eavesdropping on private conversations between employees and [a] Union representative," which occurred in the employee break room.
In NLRB v. Herman Sausage Co., 275 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1960), our circuit held that "generally speaking, the freedom to grant a unilateral wage increase "is limited to cases where there has been a bona fide but unsuccessful attempt to reach an agreement with the union, or where the union bears the guilt for having broken off relations.' NLRB v. Andrew Jergens Co., 9 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 130, 136, cert. denied, 338 U.S. 827, 70 S.Ct. 76, 94 L.Ed. 503.
Noting that "an employee . . . can lose protections if his conduct is so egregious as to take it outside the protection of the Act, or of such a character as to render the employee unfit for further service"