§

Lawrence Bros

28-A-020824 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 15, 2007)
Lawrence Bros

5 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 710 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

  2. Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    117 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that, "[b]ecause affirmative bargaining orders interfere with the employee free choice that is a core principle of the Act," we "view them with suspicion" and demand special justification for them

  3. Federated Logistics Operations v. N.L.R.B

    400 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2005)   Cited 16 times

    Nos. 03-1323, 03-1357. Argued September 14, 2004. Decided February 25, 2005. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Meir Feder argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Andrew M. Kramer and Julia M. Broas. Robert J. Englehart, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Rosenfeld, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Powell Elec. Mfg. Co.

    906 F.2d 1007 (5th Cir. 1990)   Cited 15 times
    Finding no impasse where “little substantive bargaining had taken place” during the parties' few negotiation sessions and the union had made proposals that “obviously were grist for the collective bargaining mill”

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Johnnie's Poultry Co.

    344 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1965)   Cited 32 times   11 Legal Analyses
    In N.L.R.B. v. Johnnie's Poultry Co., 8 Cir., 344 F.2d 617, we recognized that an employer has no vested right to insist that union representation be established by a Board conducted election but we further held that an employer acting in good faith belief that a union lacked majority representation was not required to recognize and bargain with the union until such doubt was resolved.