§

Kvaerner Philadelphia Shipyard, Inc.

347 N.L.R.B. 390 (N.L.R.B. 2006)
Kvaerner Philadelphia Shipyard, Inc.

17 Cited authorities

  1. Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton

    491 U.S. 657 (1989)   Cited 934 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the standard for "reckless disregard" for the truth in a defamation action by a public figure "is a subjective one," requiring that "the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication," or that "the defendant actually had a high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity"

  2. St. Amant v. Thompson

    390 U.S. 727 (1968)   Cited 1,795 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to show actual malice, plaintiff must show "high degree of awareness of probably falsity"

  3. Garrison v. Louisiana

    379 U.S. 64 (1964)   Cited 1,474 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Louisiana's criminal libel law was not “narrowly drawn” because it did not require a finding of “clear and present danger” and was not limited “to speech calculated to cause breaches of the peace”

  4. Linn v. Plant Guard Workers

    383 U.S. 53 (1966)   Cited 732 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding as preempted all defamation actions in labor disputes except those published with actual malice

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

    465 U.S. 822 (1984)   Cited 206 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection

  6. Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    437 U.S. 556 (1978)   Cited 196 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity

  7. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

    487 U.S. 1205 (1988)   Cited 105 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

  8. Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community Organization

    420 U.S. 50 (1975)   Cited 125 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that wildcat strikers are bargaining separately and are therefore not protected by the NLRA

  9. Labor Board v. Electrical Workers

    346 U.S. 464 (1953)   Cited 125 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute

  10. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 27 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”