Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc.

29 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,037 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich
510 U.S. 200 (1994) Cited 437 times 48 Legal Analyses
Holding that petitioner's constitutional claims could first be brought before the agency
Hudgens v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
424 U.S. 507 (1976) Cited 547 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding picketers "did not have a First Amendment right to enter [a privately owned] shopping center for the purpose of advertising their strike"
Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.
327 U.S. 251 (1946) Cited 991 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that when the plaintiff cannot prove his damages by precise computation, the jury "may make a just and reasonable estimate of the damage based on relevant data, and render its verdict accordingly"
Lechmere, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
502 U.S. 527 (1992) Cited 156 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent
Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.
351 U.S. 105 (1956) Cited 294 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot
Central Hardware Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
407 U.S. 539 (1972) Cited 143 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that retail store parking lot was not "open to the public" and that the retail store could exclude nonemployee union members from parking lot
Texas N.O.R. Co. v. Ry. Clerks
281 U.S. 548 (1930) Cited 381 times
Finding provision in Railway Labor Act stating that employees' right to designate representatives without interference, influence, or coercion did not violate employer's right to freedom of association
Pattern Makers' League v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
473 U.S. 95 (1985) Cited 76 times 2 Legal Analyses
Upholding the NLRB's interpretation of the Act
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.
360 U.S. 301 (1959) Cited 106 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred

Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc.

29 Cited authorities

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding that petitioner's constitutional claims could first be brought before the agency

Holding picketers "did not have a First Amendment right to enter [a privately owned] shopping center for the purpose of advertising their strike"

Holding that when the plaintiff cannot prove his damages by precise computation, the jury "may make a just and reasonable estimate of the damage based on relevant data, and render its verdict accordingly"

Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent

Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot

Finding that retail store parking lot was not "open to the public" and that the retail store could exclude nonemployee union members from parking lot

Finding provision in Railway Labor Act stating that employees' right to designate representatives without interference, influence, or coercion did not violate employer's right to freedom of association

Upholding the NLRB's interpretation of the Act

Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred