Safeway, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
440 U.S. 301 (1979) Cited 228 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 265 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.
351 U.S. 149 (1956) Cited 223 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith
Monmouth Care Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
672 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2012) Cited 7 times
Declining to overturn administrative law judge's credibility determination “based on a combination of testimonial demeanor and a lack of specificity and internal corroboration”
San Diego Newspaper Guild, Etc. v. N.L.R.B
548 F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1977) Cited 50 times
Rejecting a union's claim for information when the CBA was not up for renewal for two years and there was no evidence of contract negotiations
DirectSat U.S. LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
925 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Cir. 2019) Cited 1 times
Holding that proper inquiry on review of NLRB denial of a motion to intervene is whether the NLRB "exercised its discretion in an arbitrary way and not whether its analysis is consistent with the standards set forth in FED. R. CIV. P. 24."
N.L.R.B. v. Public Serv. Elec. Gas Co.
157 F.3d 222 (3d Cir. 1998) Cited 11 times 1 Legal Analyses
Joining several courts of appeals in applying the clear and unequivocal notice rule, namely that "[t]he 10(b) period begins when the victim of an unfair labor practice receives unequivocal notice of a final adverse decision. Rumors or suspicions will not do. . . ."
West Penn Power Co. v. N.L.R.B
394 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2005) Cited 4 times
Nos. 03-1984, 03-2139. Argued: June 3, 2004. Decided: January 12, 2005. Petition for review of National Labor Relations Board. ARGUED: John Clark Unkovic, Reed Smith, L.L.P., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for West Penn Power Company, Potomac Edison Power Company, and Allegheny Energy Service Corporation. Joan Elizabeth Hoyte, Office of the General, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for the Board. Burton E. Rosenthal, Segal, Roitman Coleman, Boston, Massachusetts, for Intervenor. ON BRIEF:
Capitol Steel & Iron Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
89 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 1996) Cited 10 times
Explaining an employer may violate its duty to bargain in good faith if its conduct "reflects a design to undermine the union in its role as the employees' sole bargaining representative"

Safeway, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores

Approving "discovery-type standard"

Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

Declining to overturn administrative law judge's credibility determination “based on a combination of testimonial demeanor and a lack of specificity and internal corroboration”

Rejecting a union's claim for information when the CBA was not up for renewal for two years and there was no evidence of contract negotiations

Holding that proper inquiry on review of NLRB denial of a motion to intervene is whether the NLRB "exercised its discretion in an arbitrary way and not whether its analysis is consistent with the standards set forth in FED. R. CIV. P. 24."

Joining several courts of appeals in applying the clear and unequivocal notice rule, namely that "[t]he 10(b) period begins when the victim of an unfair labor practice receives unequivocal notice of a final adverse decision. Rumors or suspicions will not do. . . ."

Explaining an employer may violate its duty to bargain in good faith if its conduct "reflects a design to undermine the union in its role as the employees' sole bargaining representative"