§

RITE AID OF NEW YORK, INC. AND RITE AID OF NEW JERSEY, INC., A SINGLE EMPLOYER

02-CA-160384 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 30, 2016)
RITE AID OF NEW YORK, INC. AND RITE AID OF NEW JERSEY, INC., A SINGLE EMPLOYER

5 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. Facet Enterprises, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    907 F.2d 963 (10th Cir. 1990)   Cited 30 times
    In Facet Enterprises, we reasoned "[t]he policies underlying [§ 160(e)], i.e., notice, efficiency and providing the Board with the first opportunity to consider a claim, would have been undermined had the Supreme Court allowed judicial review" in Woelke & Romero and Garment Workers' Union.

  3. Hill-Rom Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    957 F.2d 454 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times

    Nos. 89-3721, 90-1236. Argued November 2, 1990. Decided March 6, 1992. William R. Stewart, N.L.R.B., Contempt Litigation Branch, Aileen A. Armstrong, Robert I. Tendrich (argued), N.L.R.B., Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, D.C. William T. Little, James S. Robles, N.L.R.B., Region 25, Indianapolis, Ind., for N.L.R.B. Kenneth J. Yerkes, Robert K. Bellamy (argued), Barnes Thornburg, Indianapolis, Ind., for Hill-Rom Co., Inc. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board

  4. Newport News Shipbuilding v. N.L.R.B

    602 F.2d 73 (4th Cir. 1979)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that employer's proposal to change bargaining unit definition from "designers" to "draftsmen" would not merely affect work assignments but would alter the scope of the bargaining unit, because it would "not only modify the job functions of the various unit members but also affect their right to representation"

  5. International Longshoremen's v. N.L.R.B

    277 F.2d 681 (D.C. Cir. 1960)   Cited 9 times
    In International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. N.L.R.B., 107 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 277 F.2d 681, 683, it was said: "The union had a right to present, even repeatedly, a demand concerning a non-mandatory subject of bargaining, so long as it did not posit the matter as an ultimatum."