§
Klein Tools

17 Cited authorities

  1. Litton Financial Printing Division v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    501 U.S. 190 (1991)   Cited 802 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a court must determine the validity of an arbitration agreement, it "cannot avoid that duty" just because the court must decide an issue on the merits

  2. Ford Motor Co. (Chicago Stamping Plant) v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    441 U.S. 488 (1979)   Cited 290 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

  3. Dreis Krump Mfg. v. Int'l Ass'n, Machinists

    802 F.2d 247 (7th Cir. 1986)   Cited 139 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting "the idea that an arbitrator might have an inherent power to modify his award" unless the arbitrator specifically retains jurisdiction over the remedy portion of his award

  4. N.L.R.B. v. U.S. Postal Service

    8 F.3d 832 (D.C. Cir. 1993)   Cited 51 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Upholding postal service's exercise of contractual right to reduce employees' hours in response to budget reduction

  5. American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    395 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1968)   Cited 103 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying Taft

  6. Local Union 1395, Intern. Broth. v. N.L.R.B

    797 F.2d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1986)   Cited 50 times
    Adopting this section of the Restatement

  7. Richmond Recording Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    836 F.2d 289 (7th Cir. 1987)   Cited 30 times
    Asserting that an impasse does not exist unless "[b]oth parties ... believe that they are at the end of their rope"

  8. Chicago Tribune Co. v. N.L.R.B

    974 F.2d 933 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 22 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that where the contract defines the parties' rights as to mandatory subjects of bargaining, the contract will control

  9. N.L.R.B. v. New York Telephone Co.

    930 F.2d 1009 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 23 times

    No. 1010, Docket 90-4136. Argued January 31, 1991. Decided April 16, 1991. Paul Hitterman, Washington, D.C. (Howard E. Perlstein, Supervisory Atty., Jerry M. Hunter, Gen. Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C.), for petitioner. Michael Hertzberg, New York City, for respondent. Petition from National Labor Relations Board. Before KEARSE, PRATT and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges. McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge: This is a petition by the National Labor Relations

  10. Oil, Chemical Atomic Wkrs Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    842 F.2d 1141 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 21 times
    Finding a “significant” burden would be imposed on that litigant by retroactive application of the new rule