§

MENARD, INC.

18-CA-181821 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 17, 2017)
MENARD, INC.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden

    503 U.S. 318 (1992)   Cited 1,522 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where the statute does not helpfully define the term "employee," courts should apply its established meaning

  2. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid

    490 U.S. 730 (1989)   Cited 1,180 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished" and listing several factors relevant to this inquiry

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United Insurance Co. of America

    390 U.S. 254 (1968)   Cited 327 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive"

  4. FedEx Home Delivery v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    849 F.3d 1123 (D.C. Cir. 2017)   Cited 5 times   7 Legal Analyses

    No. 14-1196 C/w 15-1066, 15-1116 03-03-2017 FEDEX HOME DELIVERY, AN OPERATING DIVISION OF FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Maurice Baskin argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Joshua Waxman, Washington, DC. Michael J. Gray, E. Michael Rossman, Columbus, OH, Steven P. Lehotsky, Washington, DC, Warren Postman, Richard Pianka, Arlington, VA, and Linda E. Kelly were on the brief for amici curiae Chamber of Commerce of the

  5. North American Van Lines, Inc, v. N.L.R.B

    869 F.2d 596 (D.C. Cir. 1989)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that over-the-highway drivers are independent contractors, not employees of moving company that hires them

  6. Corporate Exp. Delivery Systems v. N.L.R.B

    292 F.3d 777 (D.C. Cir. 2002)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that owner-operator drivers were "employees" and not "independent contractors" under the National Labor Relations Act

  7. Time Auto Transp., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    377 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2004)   Cited 1 times

    Nos. 03-1194, 03-1271. Argued June 8, 2004. Decided and Filed July 23, 2004. William L. Hooth (argued and briefed), Cox, Hodgman Giarmarco, Troy, MI, for Petitioners. Richard A. Cohen (argued and briefed), Sharon I. Block, Aileen A. Armstrong (briefed), National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, for Respondent. James B. Coppess (argued and briefed), AFL-CIO Legal Department, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae. Before MARTIN and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; QUIST, District Judge. The Honorable Gordon

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Chicago Metallic Corp.

    794 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 14 times
    In Chicago Metallic, unlike the situation presented here, the employee at issue was assigned no manual chores and had the authority and discretion to take disciplinary action against employees.

  9. Section 152 - Definitions

    29 U.S.C. § 152   Cited 3,220 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Defining a supervisor to include “any individual having authority . . . to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment”