§

New Process Steel, LP

353 N.L.R.B. 111 (N.L.R.B. 2008)
New Process Steel, LP

10 Cited authorities

  1. Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    460 U.S. 693 (1983)   Cited 311 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights

  2. Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.

    356 U.S. 342 (1958)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."

  3. Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    517 U.S. 781 (1996)   Cited 59 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NLRB is due "considerable deference . . . by virtue of its charge to develop national labor policy"

  4. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 310 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    587 F.2d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 1978)   Cited 40 times
    Binding plaintiffs without their consent to a new CBA, determining their rights vis-à-vis their employer going forward, implicates the duty of fair representation

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Gen. Teamsters Union Local 662

    368 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    No. 03-3699. Argued April 15, 2004. Decided May 13, 2004. Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. No. 18-CB-4111. Ronald M. Sharp, National Labor Relations Board, Minneapolis, MN, Aileen Armstrong, Usha Dheenan (argued), National Labor Relations Board, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Jill M. Hartley (argued), Scott D. Solden, Previant, Goldberg, Uelmen, Gratz, Miller Brueggeman, Milwaukee, WI, for Respondent. Before FLAUM, Chief

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Auciello Iron Works, Inc.

    980 F.2d 804 (1st Cir. 1992)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that a bargaining representative " ‘storming out’ of ... meeting without setting another meeting date or saying farewell" did not constitute a rejection of the offer

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Newtown Corp.

    819 F.2d 677 (6th Cir. 1987)   Cited 5 times

    No. 86-5911. Argued May 4, 1987. Decided June 3, 1987. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Marc B. Seidman (argued), Linda Dreeben, Emil C. Farkas, Director, Region 9, N.L.R.B., Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner. Robert Houlihan (argued), Stoll, Keenon and Park, Lexington, Ky., for respondent. Before LIVELY, Chief Judge, and ENGEL and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us upon the application of the National Labor Relations Board, pursuant

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Seneca Environmental Products

    646 F.2d 1170 (6th Cir. 1981)   Cited 1 times

    No. 79-1590. April 23, 1981. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Richard Connolly, Washington, D.C., Bernard Levine, Director, Region 8, N.L.R.B., Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner. Arthur F. Graham, Tiffin, Ohio, for respondent. Petition from the National Labor Relations Board. Before ENGEL and MERRITT, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. ORDER In this application for enforcement of an order issued by the National Labor Relations Board, 243 N.L.R.B. No. 77 (July

  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