Quality Building Contractors, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 265 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
Genetics Institute, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc.
502 U.S. 856 (1991) Cited 80 times
Holding that Connecticut's overtime wage law is not preempted by FLSA
Local 58 Pension Trust Fund v. Gary's Elec
227 F.3d 646 (6th Cir. 2000) Cited 28 times
Holding the defendant company failed to establish fraud in the execution where its argument "basically comes down to [the company owner's] claim that he was ignorant of the type of arrangement to which he was agreeing when he signed" the collective bargaining agreement at issue, but "failed to demonstrate that [he] carried out his basic responsibility to review" the agreement
Olivetti Office U.S.A., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
926 F.2d 181 (2d Cir. 1991) Cited 27 times
Denying enforcement of Board order that would serve no legitimate purpose
Commonwealth Communications, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
312 F.3d 465 (D.C. Cir. 2002) Cited 9 times
Holding that "[i]n the absence of ambiguity in collective bargaining agreement ... [courts] have no cause to examine extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent"
Teledyne Economic Dev. v. National Labor rel
108 F.3d 56 (4th Cir. 1997) Cited 12 times
Enforcing Board's decision certifying two units at one employer, a Job Corps Center
Thomas-Davis Medical Centers, P.C. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
157 F.3d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1998) Cited 8 times
No. 97-1454, No. 97-1660 Argued September 1, 1998 Decided September 29, 1998 On Petitions for Review and Cross-Applications for Enforcement of Orders of the National Labor Relations Board. Minh N. Vu argued the cause for the petitioners. Maureen E. Mahoney and Gregg J. Tucek were on brief. Julie B. Broido, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for the respondent. Linda Sher, Associate General Counsel, John D. Burgoyne, Acting Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Peter D. Winkler
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
Teleprompter Corp. v. N.L.R.B
570 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1977) Cited 14 times
In Teleprompter Corp. v. NLRB, 570 F.2d 4, 9 (1st Cir. 1977), this court held, "[w]hen the employer itself puts profitability in contention — as by asserting an inability to pay an increase in wages — information to substantiate the employer's position has to be disclosed."

Quality Building Contractors, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

Approving "discovery-type standard"

Holding that Connecticut's overtime wage law is not preempted by FLSA

Denying enforcement of Board order that would serve no legitimate purpose

Holding that "[i]n the absence of ambiguity in collective bargaining agreement ... [courts] have no cause to examine extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent"

Enforcing Board's decision certifying two units at one employer, a Job Corps Center

In Teleprompter Corp. v. NLRB, 570 F.2d 4, 9 (1st Cir. 1977), this court held, "[w]hen the employer itself puts profitability in contention — as by asserting an inability to pay an increase in wages — information to substantiate the employer's position has to be disclosed."