§

Raymond Interior Systems

357 N.L.R.B. 2174 (N.L.R.B. 2011)
Raymond Interior Systems

11 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.

    356 U.S. 342 (1958)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."

  2. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988)   Cited 119 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding review of the Board's decision to apply a new rule of law retrospectively is deferential and that the Board's ruling will be disturbed only if it wreaks manifest injustice

  3. Vincent Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    209 F.3d 727 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 44 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Vincent Industrial, we directed the Board to premise every bargaining order on an "explicit[ balanc[ing][of] three considerations: (1) the employees' Section 7 rights [ 29 U.S.C. § 157]; (2) whether other purposes of the [NLRA] override the rights of employees to choose their bargaining representatives; and (3) whether alternative remedies are adequate to remedy the violations of the [NLRA]]."

  4. Nova Plumbing, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    330 F.3d 531 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 26 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that contractual language alone cannot establish a § 9 relationship where the union actually lacks majority support

  5. Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    117 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that, "[b]ecause affirmative bargaining orders interfere with the employee free choice that is a core principle of the Act," we "view them with suspicion" and demand special justification for them

  6. Exxel/Atmos, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    28 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1994)   Cited 28 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stressing appropriateness of bargaining order to remedy bad faith bargaining during certification year

  7. M M Backhoe Service, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    469 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2006)   Cited 7 times
    Describing the § 8(f) exception as "specific to the construction industry"

  8. American Automatic Sprinkler System, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    163 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 1998)   Cited 12 times
    Noting that Board incorrectly concluded that the union had attained 9 status because the language in contract did not evidence an unequivocal demand for or grant of voluntary recognition nor a contemporaneous showing of majority support

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Local 348-S

    273 F. App'x 40 (2d Cir. 2008)   Cited 2 times
    Documenting that the union bargained for a neutrality agreement from employer, which included the right to enter employer's premises

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Los Angeles New Hospital

    640 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 8 times

    No. 80-7073. Argued and Submitted November 5, 1980. Decided March 6, 1981. Susan L. Dolin, Richard M. Fischl, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Catherine Hagen, O'Melveny Myers, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before WRIGHT and TANG, Circuit Judges, and HANSON, Senior District Judge. The Honorable William C. Hanson, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern and Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation