§

O'Neill, Ltd.; Food Equipment Leasing Co; Amalgamated Meat Co.; Fresno Beef Processors, Inc.; Don Turner Corp.; Sierra Pacific Meat Co., Inc.; And J& E Transport, Inc.

288 N.L.R.B. 1354 (N.L.R.B. 1988)
O'Neill, Ltd.; Food Equipment Leasing Co; Amalgamated Meat Co.; Fresno Beef Processors, Inc.; Don Turner Corp.; Sierra Pacific Meat Co., Inc.; And J& E Transport, Inc.

46 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. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown

    441 U.S. 281 (1979)   Cited 1,311 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a regulation may have "the force and effect of law" if: it enacts substantive rules affecting individual rights and obligations, and is not merely an interpretive rule or general policy statement; Congress has delegated "quasi-legislative" power to the agency; and the regulation is valid, i.e., the agency has followed applicable procedures such as the Administrative Procedure Act

  3. Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    461 U.S. 731 (1983)   Cited 978 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law

  4. Holmberg v. Armbrecht

    327 U.S. 392 (1946)   Cited 1,365 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Erie does not require federal courts to apply state tolling doctrines to federal causes of action

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.

    406 U.S. 272 (1972)   Cited 478 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  6. Hazel-Atlas Co. v. Hartford Co.

    322 U.S. 238 (1944)   Cited 1,067 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal courts have the inherent power to grant relief against judgments for "after-discovered fraud"

  7. Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Exec. Bd., Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union, AFL-CIO

    417 U.S. 249 (1974)   Cited 366 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding under NLRA that purchaser of hotel assets was not required to arbitrate with union about its decision not to hire all of seller’s employees

  8. Arshal v. U.S.

    449 U.S. 1077 (1981)   Cited 205 times
    Discussing good faith in context of a § 215 violation

  9. Clark v. United States

    289 U.S. 1 (1933)   Cited 644 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a prospective juror who committed perjury had also obstructed the administration of justice because she had falsely testified to qualify for the jury even though she was biased and would acquit the defendant no matter what the evidence showed

  10. 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

  11. Rule 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 60   Cited 55,402 times   152 Legal Analyses
    Granting relief from the operation of a judgment

  12. Section 6621 - Determination of rate of interest

    26 U.S.C. § 6621   Cited 1,874 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions