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
In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."
In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.
Explaining that “[l]ong ago” the NLRB “clarified” that an employee has no right to bring a witness to a meeting, the “sole purpose” of which is to deliver a predetermined warning
Concluding that "when the entire record is considered there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that [employee's] discharge was the result of his having presented a grievance to the management" even though employee was overheard referring to company's superintendent as "the horse's ass" and was thereafter summarily discharged