§

Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC

31-CA-140948 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 4, 2016)
Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC

8 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. National Labor Rel. B. v. Kentucky R. Comm. C

    532 U.S. 706 (2001)   Cited 180 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit

  3. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013)   Cited 141 times   145 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an arbitration agreement that prohibited an employee from pursuing claims collectively did not violate the NLRA and must be enforced

  4. Murphy Oil United States, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015)   Cited 66 times   103 Legal Analyses
    Upholding its earlier holding in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB , 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013), that arbitration provisions mandating individual arbitration of employment-related claims do not violate the NLRA and are enforceable under the FAA

  5. Spurlino Materials, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    805 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2015)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that common ownership need not be absolute, just substantial, and that no particular corporate structure is required

  6. New York-New York, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    676 F.3d 193 (D.C. Cir. 2012)   Cited 8 times   9 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 11–1098 11–1138. 2012-04-17 NEW YORK–NEW YORK, LLC, doing business as New York–New York Hotel and Casino, Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RespondentLocal Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, Culinary Workers Union, Local 226, and Bartenders Union, Local 165, Intervenor. On Petition for Review and Cross–Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.Gary C. Moss argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Paul T. Trimmer and Joel J

  7. Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 29,633 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

  8. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,589 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party