M.J. Mechanical Services

23 Cited authorities

Branzburg v. Hayes
408 U.S. 665 (1972) Cited 1,836 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that government need not “demonstrate some ‘compelling need’ for a newsman's testimony”
Garcia v. Gloor
449 U.S. 1113 (1981) Cited 246 times
Holding it was harmless error because under the facts of that case, the EEOC would not have added appreciable weight to the contention of discrimination
Connell Co. v. Plumbers Steamfitters
421 U.S. 616 (1975) Cited 287 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an agreement between a union and a nonlabor party, which is wholly-unrelated to any collective-bargaining effort on the part of the union and which operates or threatens to operate as a restraint on trade, may be the basis for a federal antitrust suit
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Town & Country Electric, Inc.
516 U.S. 85 (1995) Cited 85 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding "employee," as defined by the NLRA, "does not exclude paid union organizers"
N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 358 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Allen Bradley Co. v. Union
325 U.S. 797 (1945) Cited 304 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendants were not protected by the statutory labor exemption because the union had combined with contractors and manufacturers in order to boycott the plaintiffs' business
Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community Organization
420 U.S. 50 (1975) Cited 125 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that wildcat strikers are bargaining separately and are therefore not protected by the NLRA
United States v. Burke
700 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1983) Cited 198 times
Concluding that there is "no legally-principled reason for drawing a distinction between civil and criminal cases when considering whether the reporter's interest in confidentiality should yield to the moving party's need for probative evidence."
Labor Board v. Electrical Workers
346 U.S. 464 (1953) Cited 125 times 41 Legal Analyses
Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute
International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988) Cited 119 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding review of the Board's decision to apply a new rule of law retrospectively is deferential and that the Board's ruling will be disturbed only if it wreaks manifest injustice

M.J. Mechanical Services

23 Cited authorities

Holding that government need not “demonstrate some ‘compelling need’ for a newsman's testimony”

Holding it was harmless error because under the facts of that case, the EEOC would not have added appreciable weight to the contention of discrimination

Holding that an agreement between a union and a nonlabor party, which is wholly-unrelated to any collective-bargaining effort on the part of the union and which operates or threatens to operate as a restraint on trade, may be the basis for a federal antitrust suit

Holding "employee," as defined by the NLRA, "does not exclude paid union organizers"

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

Holding that the defendants were not protected by the statutory labor exemption because the union had combined with contractors and manufacturers in order to boycott the plaintiffs' business

Holding that wildcat strikers are bargaining separately and are therefore not protected by the NLRA

Concluding that there is "no legally-principled reason for drawing a distinction between civil and criminal cases when considering whether the reporter's interest in confidentiality should yield to the moving party's need for probative evidence."

Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute

Holding review of the Board's decision to apply a new rule of law retrospectively is deferential and that the Board's ruling will be disturbed only if it wreaks manifest injustice