New York Telephone Co.

6 Cited authorities

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

    460 U.S. 693 (1983)   Cited 313 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights
  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 265 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"
  3. Timken Roller Bearing Company v. N.L.R.B

    325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963)   Cited 56 times
    In Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 971, 84 S.Ct. 1135, 12 L.Ed.2d 85 (1964), the court considered a union request for information concerning five grievances that awaited hearings before a chosen arbitrator.
  4. Chesapeake Potomac Telephone Co. v. N.L.R.B

    687 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1982)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that waiver of statutory rights can be effectuated only if "intent to waive is clear and unmistakable from the evidence presented"
  5. N.L.R.B. v. Int'l Bro. of Elec Wkrs., Local 11

    772 F.2d 571 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 9 times

    No. 84-7439. Argued and Submitted March 4, 1985. Decided September 24, 1985. William R. Stewart, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, Frederick Havard, Atty., Washington, D.C., for petitioner N.L.R.B. Robert Newman, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners-intervenors Loveall, Sokol and Mott. Elizabeth R. Lishner, Davis, Frommer Jesinger, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before GOODWIN, FLETCHER and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges. GOODWIN

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Perkins Machine Company

    326 F.2d 488 (1st Cir. 1964)   Cited 14 times

    No. 6182. January 23, 1964. Peter M. Giesey, Washington, D.C., Atty., with whom Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Solomon I. Hirsh, Washington, D.C., Atty., were on brief, for petitioner. John H. Goewey, Worcester, Mass., with whom James S. Gratton and Bowditch, Gowetz Lane, Worcester, Mass., were on brief, for respondent. Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Respondent