Legal Services of Northern California

11 Cited authorities

Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.
486 U.S. 399 (1988) Cited 2,092 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a retaliatory discharge claim was not preempted because the elements of the state tort did not necessitate interpretation of a labor contract
Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
440 U.S. 301 (1979) Cited 227 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 265 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
39 Cal.4th 95 (Cal. 2006) Cited 244 times 9 Legal Analyses
Finding that a defendant can be liable under section 632 for recording its own conversation with plaintiff if plaintiff did not consent to the recording
J.I. Case Co. v. Labor Board
321 U.S. 332 (1944) Cited 457 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the result of a collective bargaining agreement is not "a contract of employment except in rare cases; no one has a job by reason of it and no obligation to any individual ordinarily comes into existence from it alone"
Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.
351 U.S. 149 (1956) Cited 223 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith
Curtiss-Wright, Wright Aero. Div. v. N.L.R.B
347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965) Cited 55 times
Noting the Board has "considerable leeway in amplifying or expanding certain details not specifically set forth in the complaint if they accord with the general substance of the complaint"
N.L.R.B. v. New England Newspapers, Inc.
856 F.2d 409 (1st Cir. 1988) Cited 13 times
No. 88-1009. Argued July 28, 1988. Decided September 12, 1988. Collis Suzanne Stocking, Supervisory Atty., with whom Rosemary M. Collyer, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, and W. Christian Schumann, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for petitioner. Howard M. Kastrinsky with whom Charles J. Mataya and King Ballow, Nashville, Tenn., were on brief, for respondent. Petition from the National
N.L.R.B. v. Leonard B. Hebert, Jr. Co.
696 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir. 1983) Cited 14 times
Holding that the union "has the initial burden of showing relevancy" where it alleges that the employer is using "double breasted operations" to evade contractual obligations with the union, i.e., the employer is allegedly operating two corporations, one hiring strictly union employees, and the other, nonunion employees, to compete for both union and nonunion work
Western Massachusetts Elec. Co. v. N.L.R.B
573 F.2d 101 (1st Cir. 1978) Cited 12 times
Acknowledging that when an employer makes "assertions, the duty to bargain in good faith required [the employer] to provide, upon demand, such information as was reasonably necessary to substantiate them"
Section 631 - Unlawful tapping
Cal. Pen. Code § 631 Cited 255 times 14 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting "any person who . . . makes any unauthorized connection . . . or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication . . . reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable . . . "

Legal Services of Northern California

11 Cited authorities

Holding that a retaliatory discharge claim was not preempted because the elements of the state tort did not necessitate interpretation of a labor contract

Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores

Approving "discovery-type standard"

Finding that a defendant can be liable under section 632 for recording its own conversation with plaintiff if plaintiff did not consent to the recording

Holding that the result of a collective bargaining agreement is not "a contract of employment except in rare cases; no one has a job by reason of it and no obligation to any individual ordinarily comes into existence from it alone"

Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

Noting the Board has "considerable leeway in amplifying or expanding certain details not specifically set forth in the complaint if they accord with the general substance of the complaint"

Acknowledging that when an employer makes "assertions, the duty to bargain in good faith required [the employer] to provide, upon demand, such information as was reasonably necessary to substantiate them"

Prohibiting "any person who . . . makes any unauthorized connection . . . or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication . . . reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable . . . "