Labor Ready

10 Cited authorities

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979) Cited 4,295 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair
Montana v. United States
440 U.S. 147 (1979) Cited 3,638 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board
313 U.S. 177 (1941) Cited 871 times
Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
Lechmere, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
502 U.S. 527 (1992) Cited 156 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.
351 U.S. 105 (1956) Cited 294 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Town & Country Electric, Inc.
516 U.S. 85 (1995) Cited 85 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding "employee," as defined by the NLRA, "does not exclude paid union organizers"
N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 357 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Town Country Elec., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
34 F.3d 625 (8th Cir. 1994) Cited 4 times
Nos. 92-3911, 93-1218. Submitted October 11, 1993. Decided August 31, 1994. James K. Pease, Jr., Madison, WI, argued (James K. Pease, Jr. and Douglas E. Witt, on the brief), for petitioner/cross-respondent. Marilyn O'Rourke, Washington, DC, argued (Frederick C. Havard and Marilyn O'Rourke, and Gen. counsel Jerry M. Hunter, Yvonne T. Dixon, Nicholas E. Karatinos and Aileen A. Armstrong, on the brief), for respondent/cross-petitioner, NLRB. Stephen D. Gordon, Minneapolis, MN, argued (Stephen D. Gordon
Southern Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
954 F.2d 700 (11th Cir. 1992) Cited 3 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Southern Serv., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 954 F.2d 700 (11th Cir. 1992), the Eleventh Circuit upheld a Board determination that a contractor providing janitorial services at a Coca-Cola manufacturer's site enjoyed the same organizational rights under the Act as the employer's employees did.

Labor Ready

10 Cited authorities

Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"

Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot

Holding "employee," as defined by the NLRA, "does not exclude paid union organizers"

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

In Southern Serv., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 954 F.2d 700 (11th Cir. 1992), the Eleventh Circuit upheld a Board determination that a contractor providing janitorial services at a Coca-Cola manufacturer's site enjoyed the same organizational rights under the Act as the employer's employees did.