§

Omni Commercial Lighting, Inc.

364 NLRB No. 54 (N.L.R.B. 2016)
Omni Commercial Lighting, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Vaca v. Sipes

    386 U.S. 171 (1967)   Cited 4,209 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under the LMRA, an "individual employee has absolute right to have his grievance taken to arbitration regardless of the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement"

  2. Air Line Pilots v. O'Neill

    499 U.S. 65 (1991)   Cited 1,076 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this rule "applies to all union activity"

  3. Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight

    424 U.S. 554 (1976)   Cited 1,144 times
    Holding that employees can challenge final decision of arbitrator only if they "prove . . . the Union's breach of duty tainting the decision of the [arbitrator]"

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

    465 U.S. 822 (1984)   Cited 206 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection

  5. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

    487 U.S. 1205 (1988)   Cited 105 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 357 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  7. Labor Board v. Lion Oil Co.

    352 U.S. 282 (1957)   Cited 139 times
    Observing that the court bears "a judicial responsibility to find that interpretation which can most fairly be said to be embedded in the statute, in the sense of being most harmonious with its scheme and with the general purposes that Congress manifested"

  8. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Interboro Contractors, Inc.

    388 F.2d 495 (2d Cir. 1967)   Cited 80 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Interboro Contractors, Inc., 388 F.2d 495, 500 (2d Cir. 1967), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that the efforts of an individual employee acting alone to enforce the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement may be deemed "concerted," and thus protected, at least when the individual's interpretation of the agreement has a reasonable basis.

  10. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 27 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”