§

Milum Textile Services, Co.

28-CA-020898 (N.L.R.B. Oct. 5, 2007)
Milum Textile Services, Co.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    461 U.S. 731 (1983)   Cited 978 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law

  2. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Trades Council

    485 U.S. 568 (1988)   Cited 729 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union’s distribution of handbills at the entrances of a shopping mall was not threatening, coercing, or restraining within meaning of section 8(b) because there had been "no violence, picketing, or patrolling," and "no suggestion that the leaflets had any coercive effect on customers of the mall"

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,035 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  4. BEK CONSTR. CO. v. NLRB

    536 U.S. 516 (2002)   Cited 310 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the First Amendment right to petition the government extends to the courts

  5. Burlington No. R. Co. v. Maintenance Employes

    481 U.S. 429 (1987)   Cited 158 times
    Holding that Norris-LaGuardia prevents injunctions against union picketing of terminals through which employer's trains ran

  6. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board

    324 U.S. 793 (1945)   Cited 495 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

  7. Teamsters Union v. Morton

    377 U.S. 252 (1964)   Cited 254 times
    Holding that although the NLRA neither prohibits nor protects secondary boycotts, which function as a form of self-help available to unions to aid them in reaching their bargaining goals during negotiations, state-law attempts to regulate them are preempted because use of the boycott was part of the balance struck by Congress between the conflicting interests of the union, the employees, the employer, and the community; exceptions are when the type of conduct constitutes an imminent threat to public order or implicates deeply rooted local concerns

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 357 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  9. Labor Board v. Servette

    377 U.S. 46 (1964)   Cited 74 times
    Holding under section 8(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b), that statutory protection for the distribution of handbills would be undermined if a threat to engage in protected conduct were not itself protected

  10. Int'l Alliance of Theatrical v. N.L.R.B

    334 F.3d 27 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 11 times
    Granting petition for review and vacating unfair labor practice finding because Board interpretation of "any employee who engages in a strike" under section 8(d) of Act was "in conflict with both interpretive precedent and the statute's structure" and produced "internal inconsistency" and "irrational results in practice"