§

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

369 N.L.R.B. 56 (N.L.R.B. 2020)
Napleton 1050, Inc. d/b/a Napleton Cadillac of Libertyville

10 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. Holsum de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    456 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 2006)   Cited 3 times
    Finding substantial evidence of knowledge of union activities conducted in plain view in an open parking lot where the activities "could very well have been observed by any number of supervisors and managers"

  6. Teamsters Union Local 287 v. N.L.R.B

    293 F. App'x 518 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1 times

    Nos. 06-72964, 06-73444. Submitted September 8, 2008. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2). Filed September 18, 2008. Duane B. Beeson, Esquire, Senior, Jason E. Rabinowitz, Beeson Tayer Bodine, PC, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner. Linda Dreeben, Assistant General Counsel, Lester A. Heltzer, Esquire, Robert J. Englehart, Esquire, Gregory Lauro, Esquire, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, for Respondent. Alan S. Levins

  7. 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."

  8. 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

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. C & W Lektra Bat Co.

    513 F.2d 200 (6th Cir. 1975)   Cited 3 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. C W Lektra Bat Co., 513 F.2d 200 (6th Cir. 1975), the union conceded that it had told the company during negotiations that the contract would be submitted to employees for ratification. Still, the Court granted enforcement of the order by the Board, which had demanded "specific proof" of "an agreement to make ratification a condition precedent to a collective-bargaining agreement."

  10. 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