§

Midland Electrical Contracting Corp.

365 NLRB No. 87 (N.L.R.B. 2017)
Midland Electrical Contracting Corp.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Canning

    573 U.S. 513 (2014)   Cited 274 times   150 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because there was no quorum of validly appointed board members, the NLRB “lacked authority to act,” and the enforcement order was therefore “void ab initio ”

  2. Holsum de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    456 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 2006)   Cited 3 times
    Finding substantial evidence of knowledge of union activities conducted in plain view in an open parking lot where the activities "could very well have been observed by any number of supervisors and managers"

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Rome Elec. Systems

    286 F. App'x 697 (11th Cir. 2008)

    No. 07-13132. July 18, 2008. Julie B. Broido, Gregory Lauro, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Mark M.J. Webb, Brinson, Askew, Berry, Seigler, Richardson Davis, LLP, Rome, GA, for Respondent. Petition for Review of a Decision of the National Labor Relations Board. NLRB No. 10-CA-35458. Before TJOFLAT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and VINSON, District Judge. Honorable C. Roger Vinson, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation. PER CURIAM: This case

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. D.A. Nolt, Inc.

    406 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2005)   Cited 2 times

    Nos. 04-2321, 04-2681. Argued: February 14, 2005. Filed: May 4, 2005. David Habenstreit (Argued), Kira D. Vol, Aileen A. Armstrong, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent. Thomas C. Zipfel (Argued), Cohen, Seglias, Pallas, Greenhall Furman, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges. OPINION OF THE COURT ALDISERT, Circuit Judge. We must evaluate an Application for Enforcement by the National

  5. Sheet Metal Wkrs. Intl. v. Simpson Sheet Metal

    954 F.2d 554 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 4 times

    No. 90-16526. Submitted December 9, 1991. The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a). Decided January 21, 1992. Kathryn A. Sure and Mark S. Renner, Wylie, McBride, Jesinger, Sure Platten, San Jose, Cal., for petitioner-appellant. Hugh N. Helm, Jordon Ferrington, Santa Rosa, Cal., for respondents-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before HUG, HALL

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Callier

    630 F.2d 595 (8th Cir. 1980)   Cited 9 times
    In NLRB v. Callier, 630 F.2d 595 (8th Cir. 1980), the court indicated that the Board's rules may be too narrow and that interim agreements coupled with strikes might well fragment a bargaining unit so as to justify withdrawal.

  7. Carvel Co. v. N.L.R.B

    560 F.2d 1030 (1st Cir. 1977)   Cited 11 times
    Bargaining began for purposes of the Retail Associates rule when multiemployer bargaining unit answered union letter related to bargaining proposals

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second

  9. Section 102.46 - Exceptions and brief in support; answering briefs to exceptions; cross-exceptions and brief in support; answering briefs to cross-exceptions; reply briefs; failure to except; oral argument; filing requirements; amicus curiae briefs

    29 C.F.R. § 102.46   Cited 103 times
    Providing that the answering brief to exceptions "must be limited to the questions raised in the exceptions," "must present clearly the points of fact and law relied on in support of the position taken on each question," and "must specify those pages of the record which the party contends support the Judge's finding"