11 Cited authorities
DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Trades Council
485 U.S. 568 (1988) Cited 732 times 10 Legal AnalysesHolding that a union’s distribution of handbills at the entrances of a shopping mall was not threatening, coercing, or restraining within meaning of section 8(b) because there had been "no violence, picketing, or patrolling," and "no suggestion that the leaflets had any coercive effect on customers of the mall"
Hudgens v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
424 U.S. 507 (1976) Cited 545 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding picketers "did not have a First Amendment right to enter [a privately owned] shopping center for the purpose of advertising their strike"
Lechmere, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
502 U.S. 527 (1992) Cited 156 times 18 Legal AnalysesHolding 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
Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
437 U.S. 556 (1978) Cited 196 times 13 Legal AnalysesHolding 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
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal AnalysesFinding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.
351 U.S. 105 (1956) Cited 294 times 19 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot
Metropolitan Dist. Council v. N.L.R.B
68 F.3d 71 (3d Cir. 1995) Cited 6 timesNo. 95-3086. submitted October 12, 1995. Filed October 25, 1995. Richard C. McNeill, Jr. sagot, Jennings Sigmond, Philadelphia, PA, kathy Krieger, Washington, DC, David M. Silberman, Laurence Gold, Washington, DC, Cynthia C. Estland, Austin, TX, for Petitioner. Frederick L. Feinstein, General Counsel, Linda Sher, Acting Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Robert J. Englehart, Margaret G. Neigus, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Local Union No. 501 v. N.L.R.B
756 F.2d 888 (D.C. Cir. 1985) Cited 12 timesNos. 84-1340, 84-1464. Argued January 17, 1985. Decided March 15, 1985. Ralph P. Katz, New York City, for petitioner in No. 84-1340 and cross-respondent in No. 84-1464. Scott Meza, Chapel Hill, N.C., Atty., National Labor Relations Board, of the Bar of the Supreme Court of North Carolina pro hac vice by special leave of the Court, with whom Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for respondent in No. 84-1340 and cross-petitioner
Southern Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
954 F.2d 700 (11th Cir. 1992) Cited 3 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn Southern Serv., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 954 F.2d 700 (11th Cir. 1992), the Eleventh Circuit upheld a Board determination that a contractor providing janitorial services at a Coca-Cola manufacturer's site enjoyed the same organizational rights under the Act as the employer's employees did.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Del Rey Tortilleria, Inc.
823 F.2d 1135 (7th Cir. 1987) Cited 5 timesNo. 86-1251. Argued December 9, 1986. Decided July 8, 1987. John H. Ferguson, NLRB, Washington, D.C., William A. Widmer, III, Carmell, Charone, Widmer Mathews, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Irving M. Geslewitz, Adams, Fox, Adelstein Rosen, Chicago, Ill., for respondent. Appeal from the National Labor Relations Board. Before CUDAHY and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges, and WILL, Senior District Judge. The Honorable Hubert L. Will, Senior District Judge of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by