§

Murray American Energy, Inc. and The Marion County Coal Company, a Single Employer

06-CA-148388 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 5, 2016)
Murray American Energy, Inc. and The Marion County Coal Company, a Single Employer

22 Cited authorities

  1. 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 "

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

    465 U.S. 822 (1984)   Cited 206 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection

  3. Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    437 U.S. 556 (1978)   Cited 196 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity

  4. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

    487 U.S. 1205 (1988)   Cited 105 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

  5. 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

  6. Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

    379 U.S. 21 (1964)   Cited 106 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

  7. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    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."

  8. Vincent Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    209 F.3d 727 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 44 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Vincent Industrial, we directed the Board to premise every bargaining order on an "explicit[ balanc[ing][of] three considerations: (1) the employees' Section 7 rights [ 29 U.S.C. § 157]; (2) whether other purposes of the [NLRA] override the rights of employees to choose their bargaining representatives; and (3) whether alternative remedies are adequate to remedy the violations of the [NLRA]]."

  9. McPc Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    813 F.3d 475 (3d Cir. 2016)   Cited 14 times
    Distinguishing Wright Line from the framework established in N.L.R.B. v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21, 23, 85 S.Ct. 171, 13 L.Ed.2d 1

  10. United Services Auto. Ass'n v. N.L.R.B

    387 F.3d 908 (D.C. Cir. 2004)   Cited 17 times
    Applying Essex rule where company banned solicitation and distribution “at any time in the work area and only during nonworking hours in non-work areas”