§

Saia Motor Freight

333 N.L.R.B. 929 (N.L.R.B. 2001)
Saia Motor Freight

7 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. United Parcel Service, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    228 F.3d 772 (6th Cir. 2000)   Cited 10 times
    Upholding designation of check-in area as “mixed-use” because that area “transformed into a congregation point for the drivers to drink coffee, read magazines and newspapers, and converse before their morning shift”

  3. Mueller Brass Co. v. N.L.R.B

    544 F.2d 815 (5th Cir. 1977)   Cited 26 times
    Involving more intrusive questioning against a clear history of strenuous anti-union activity

  4. Days Inn Management Co. v. N.L.R.B

    930 F.2d 211 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 3 times

    Nos. 1035, 1255, Dockets 90-4135, 90-4151. Argued February 8, 1991. Decided April 10, 1991. Abner P. Slatt, New York City, and John R. Hunt, Atlanta, Ga. (Slatt and Lane, New York City, Stokes, Lazarus Carmichael, Atlanta, Ga., of counsel), for petitioner-cross-respondent. Karen L. Arndt, Washington, D.C. (Paul J. Spielberg, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel for the N.L.R.B., Jerry M. Hunter, General Counsel for the N.L.R.B., Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel for the N.L.R.B., of counsel)

  5. Luxuray of N.Y., Div. of Beaunit v. N.L.R.B

    447 F.2d 112 (2d Cir. 1971)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that exhibition of anti-union film expressing negative opinion of past local unions and speculating that similar abuses might accompany future unionization was protected speech under § 8(c)

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Delchamps, Inc.

    653 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 3 times

    No. 79-4067. August 14, 1981. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied October 7, 1981. Elliott Moore, Deputy Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Peter M. Bernstein, Ralph C. Simpson, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Kullman, Lang, Inman Bee, William F. Banta, New Orleans, La., for respondent. On petition for enforcement of an order of National Labor Relations Board. Before KRAVITCH and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges, and LYNNE, District Judge. District Judge of the Northern District of Alabama

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Spartus Corporation

    471 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1973)   Cited 1 times

    No. 72-1768. January 9, 1973. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., John J.A. Reynolds, Jr., Region 26, N.L.R.B., Memphis, Tenn., Judith Wilkenfeld, Washington, D.C., N.L.R.B., for petitioner. William F. Banta, New Orleans, La., for respondent. Before WISDOM, BELL and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The sole issue before us is whether substantial evidence supports the findings of the National Labor Relations Board that Spartus Corporation, at its Louisville,