§

Schwickert���s of Rochester, Inc.

343 N.L.R.B. 1044 (N.L.R.B. 2004)
Schwickert���s of Rochester, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.

    424 U.S. 747 (1976)   Cited 1,100 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the interests of "unnamed members of the class" who are entitled to relief may satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement

  2. Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    454 U.S. 404 (1982)   Cited 116 times
    Holding that courts must not "substitute [their] judgment for those of the Board with respect to the issues that Congress intended the Board should resolve"

  3. Labor Board v. Truck Drivers Union

    353 U.S. 87 (1957)   Cited 197 times
    Discussing congressional debate over the Taft-Hartley amendments of 1947

  4. 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

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wehr Constructors, Inc.

    159 F.3d 946 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 6 times
    In Wehr we observed: "As Fibreboard and First National Maintenance make clear, a decision to subcontract is not necessarily subject to mandatory collective bargaining; whether such bargaining is mandatory can only be answered by looking to the particular facts presented in the individual case."

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Charles D. Bonanno Linen Serv

    630 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1980)   Cited 19 times
    In Bonanno, unlike the present case, no separate agreements were consensually reached after impasse between the Union and withdrawing employers.

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Southwestern Colorado Con. Ass'n

    379 F.2d 360 (10th Cir. 1967)   Cited 13 times
    Finding leading questions appropriate under similar statutory provision because "[b]y virtue of [former employee's] status as the proprietor of one of the respondent firms as well as his former official position within [the Defendant] Association, his interests and sympathies were clearly aligned with those of the other respondent"