§

King's Fire Protection

05-CA-036094 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 28, 2011)
King's Fire Protection

5 Cited authorities

  1. Machinists Local v. Labor Board

    362 U.S. 411 (1960)   Cited 276 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

  2. Garment Workers v. Labor Board

    366 U.S. 731 (1961)   Cited 213 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union cannot represent a group of employees for which it does not enjoy majority support

  3. Nova Plumbing, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    330 F.3d 531 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 26 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that contractual language alone cannot establish a § 9 relationship where the union actually lacks majority support

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Tahoe Nugget, Inc.

    584 F.2d 293 (9th Cir. 1978)   Cited 58 times
    In Tahoe Nugget and Sahara-Tahoe we stressed that the evidence presented to establish reasonable good faith doubt, individually or cumulatively, must unequivocally indicate that union support had declined to a minority.

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second