§

Napleton 1050, Inc. d/b/a Napleton Cadillac of Libertyville

13-CA-209951 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 24, 2019)
Napleton 1050, Inc. d/b/a Napleton Cadillac of Libertyville

7 Cited authorities

  1. Machinists Local v. Labor Board

    362 U.S. 411 (1960)   Cited 276 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

  2. Vulcan Hart Corp.

    718 F.2d 269 (8th Cir. 1983)   Cited 44 times
    Holding “Rule 408 excludes evidence of settlement offers only if such evidence is offered to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim under negotiation”

  3. King Soopers, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    859 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017)   Cited 5 times

    No. 16-1316 C/w 16-1367 06-09-2017 KING SOOPERS, INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Raymond M. Deeny, Colorado Springs, CO, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Jonathon M. Watson, Denver, CO. Amy H. Ginn, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Richard F. Griffin, Jr., General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Robert

  4. Ryan Iron Works, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    257 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that employer engaged in direct dealing when he "told [an employee] that the failure of negotiations was the Union's fault and actively solicited ... input" on other employees’ views

  5. Precision Concrete v. N.L.R.B

    334 F.3d 88 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 2 times
    In Precision, we held that the only link between the t-shirt incident and the other charged unfair labor practices was that "all occurred during the course of the Union's organizing drive in 1988."

  6. F. L. Thorpe Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    71 F.3d 282 (8th Cir. 1995)   Cited 3 times
    Holding it was error to base conversion finding on "caused consternation" test where evidence established strike remained economically motivated

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second