Riesbeck Food Markets

14 Cited authorities

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
Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Carpenters
436 U.S. 180 (1978) Cited 554 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that both state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably protected under § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA
Letter Carriers v. Austin
418 U.S. 264 (1974) Cited 609 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union newsletter's description of a “scab” as a “traitor” could not be construed as a factual assertion
Hudgens v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
424 U.S. 507 (1976) Cited 543 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding picketers "did not have a First Amendment right to enter [a privately owned] shopping center for the purpose of advertising their strike"
Linn v. Plant Guard Workers
383 U.S. 53 (1966) Cited 732 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding as preempted all defamation actions in labor disputes except those published with actual malice
Lechmere, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
502 U.S. 527 (1992) Cited 156 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent
Northern California v. Award Service
474 U.S. 1081 (1986) Cited 153 times
Holding that, despite the specific provisions of section 502, "an employer may bring an action under ERISA to enforce its terms where the employer alleges specific and personal injury"
Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.
351 U.S. 105 (1956) Cited 294 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nash-Finch Co.
404 U.S. 138 (1971) Cited 163 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that board's attempt to "enjoin" or "restrain" state court injunction fell within exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2283, which forbids court from granting "an injunction to stay" such proceedings unless otherwise authorized
Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
2 F.3d 1162 (D.C. Cir. 1993) Cited 30 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming bargaining order where company's "large number of unfair labor practices, . . . committed by some of the top officials in the company, and . . . directed at numerous employees . . . instilled a strong fear of union representation in the employees."

Riesbeck Food Markets

14 Cited authorities

Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law

Holding that both state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably protected under § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA

Holding that a union newsletter's description of a “scab” as a “traitor” could not be construed as a factual assertion

Holding picketers "did not have a First Amendment right to enter [a privately owned] shopping center for the purpose of advertising their strike"

Holding as preempted all defamation actions in labor disputes except those published with actual malice

Holding that Board erred in finding that employer should have allowed union on its premises because it had no other way to reach its target audience, inasmuch as in reaching its decision the Board misconstrued prior Supreme Court precedent

Holding that, despite the specific provisions of section 502, "an employer may bring an action under ERISA to enforce its terms where the employer alleges specific and personal injury"

Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot

Holding that board's attempt to "enjoin" or "restrain" state court injunction fell within exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2283, which forbids court from granting "an injunction to stay" such proceedings unless otherwise authorized

Affirming bargaining order where company's "large number of unfair labor practices, . . . committed by some of the top officials in the company, and . . . directed at numerous employees . . . instilled a strong fear of union representation in the employees."