§

Orchids Paper Products Co.

367 NLRB No. 33 (N.L.R.B. 2018)
Orchids Paper Products Co.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 705 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United Insurance Co. of America

    390 U.S. 254 (1968)   Cited 324 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive"

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

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 355 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  4. Multi-Ad Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    255 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 33 times
    Affirming Board's finding of coercive interrogation where an employee was asked "why he would want to bring a union into the company"

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Consolidated Bus Transit

    577 F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 16 times
    Interpreting similar language in 29 C.F.R. § 101.10 as meaning "that the Board's procedures are to be controlled by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as far as practicable" (cleaned up)

  6. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    711 F.2d 348 (D.C. Cir. 1983)   Cited 40 times

    Nos. 82-1418 to 82-1420, 82-1743, 82-1589 and 82-1940. Argued May 5, 1983. Decided June 30, 1983. George H. Cohen, with whom Laurence Gold, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for petitioners, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, Local Union No. 6-418, AFL-CIO, et al. George J. Tichy, II, San Francisco, Cal., with whom Robert K. Carrol, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner, Borden Chemical, A Division of Borden, Inc. Howard A. Crawford, with whom Jack D. Rowe, Kansas City, Mo., was on brief, for petitioner

  7. Atrium of Princeton, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    684 F.3d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2012)   Cited 5 times
    Rejecting the Board's formulation of the relevant common-law agency standard and effectively applying de novo analysis of the common law

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Hardesty Co., Inc.

    308 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2002)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that violations of § 8 of the Act “send the message to the employees that their union is ineffectual, impotent, and unable to effectively represent them”

  9. Hotel Emp. Restaurant Emp. Un. v. N.L.R.B

    760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 26 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Affirming Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176

  10. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. N.L.R.B

    318 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that demonstration of economic exigency justifies prompt implementation of a company's proposals