Midwest Terminals of Toledo International, Inc.

21 Cited authorities

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,675 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
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"
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
460 U.S. 693 (1983) Cited 311 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
682 F.3d 65 (D.C. Cir. 2012) Cited 17 times
Explaining that the NLRB must "give a reasoned justification for departing from its precedent"
Beverly Health Rehab. Serv. v. N.L.R.B
317 F.3d 316 (D.C. Cir. 2003) Cited 18 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding no unfairness where the plaintiff “had every incentive to—and did—litigate the issue before the [previous court]”
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
711 F.2d 348 (D.C. Cir. 1983) Cited 41 times
Nos. 82-1418 to 82-1420, 82-1743, 82-1589 and 82-1940. Argued May 5, 1983. Decided June 30, 1983. George H. Cohen, with whom Laurence Gold, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for petitioners, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, Local Union No. 6-418, AFL-CIO, et al. George J. Tichy, II, San Francisco, Cal., with whom Robert K. Carrol, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner, Borden Chemical, A Division of Borden, Inc. Howard A. Crawford, with whom Jack D. Rowe, Kansas City, Mo., was on brief, for petitioner
Cintas Corp. v. N.L.R.B
482 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 2007) Cited 12 times 2 Legal Analyses
Upholding National Labor Relations Board determination that an employer's rule that was likely to chill employees' discussion of wages constituted an unfair labor practice under the NLRA
U.S. Can Co. v. N.L.R.B
984 F.2d 864 (7th Cir. 1993) Cited 19 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a zipper clause does not survive expiration
Furniture Rentors of America, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
36 F.3d 1240 (3d Cir. 1994) Cited 16 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that employer was not required to bargain over subcontracting because decision was based on reduced productivity, damaged product, customer complaints, and employee theft rather than labor costs
Scepter, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
280 F.3d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2002) Cited 8 times
Noting that because the party "failed to raise a particularized challenge to the bargaining order before the Board, this court has no authority to address the issue"

Midwest Terminals of Toledo International, Inc.

21 Cited authorities

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

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"

Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights

Explaining that the NLRB must "give a reasoned justification for departing from its precedent"

Finding no unfairness where the plaintiff “had every incentive to—and did—litigate the issue before the [previous court]”

Upholding National Labor Relations Board determination that an employer's rule that was likely to chill employees' discussion of wages constituted an unfair labor practice under the NLRA

Holding that a zipper clause does not survive expiration

Holding that employer was not required to bargain over subcontracting because decision was based on reduced productivity, damaged product, customer complaints, and employee theft rather than labor costs

Noting that because the party "failed to raise a particularized challenge to the bargaining order before the Board, this court has no authority to address the issue"