SECURITY WALLS, LLC

18 Cited authorities

Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.
500 U.S. 90 (1991) Cited 1,242 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding parties' legal theories not binding on Court, which "retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Canning
573 U.S. 513 (2014) Cited 280 times 150 Legal Analyses
Holding that because there was no quorum of validly appointed board members, the NLRB “lacked authority to act,” and the enforcement order was therefore “void ab initio ”
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 712 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
H. K. Porter Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
397 U.S. 99 (1970) Cited 222 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the NLRB is "without power to compel a company or a union to agree to any substantive contractual provision of a collective-bargaining agreement."
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."
American Pipe Construction Co. v. Maricopa County
401 U.S. 937 (1971) Cited 46 times
Allowing oil company to recover for lost profits on 130 days worth of production
Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Martin
954 F.2d 353 (6th Cir. 1992) Cited 61 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that former version of statute protected employees who complain about “possible safety violations”
Cioffe v. Morris
676 F.2d 539 (11th Cir. 1982) Cited 75 times
Rejecting an argument that Rule 54(c) permits the award of relief on impleaded issues
Indep. Elec. Contractors of Houston, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
720 F.3d 543 (5th Cir. 2013) Cited 11 times
Recognizing "a futility exception"—in a decision not cited by Chipotle—because, among other reasons, the Board had already "discussed" and "preemptively denied" the potential objection, so filing a motion to reconsider would have been "an empty formality"
Conair Corp. v. N.L.R.B
721 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1983) Cited 48 times
In Conair, the Board, in marked contrast to this case, had specifically found that no other remedy could "dissipate the lingering effects of [Conair's] massive and unrelenting coercive conduct" which "ha[d] foreclosed any possibility of holding a fair representation election."

SECURITY WALLS, LLC

18 Cited authorities

Holding parties' legal theories not binding on Court, which "retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law"

Holding that because there was no quorum of validly appointed board members, the NLRB “lacked authority to act,” and the enforcement order was therefore “void ab initio ”

Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

Holding that the NLRB is "without power to compel a company or a union to agree to any substantive contractual provision of a collective-bargaining agreement."

Allowing oil company to recover for lost profits on 130 days worth of production

Holding that former version of statute protected employees who complain about “possible safety violations”

Rejecting an argument that Rule 54(c) permits the award of relief on impleaded issues

Recognizing "a futility exception"—in a decision not cited by Chipotle—because, among other reasons, the Board had already "discussed" and "preemptively denied" the potential objection, so filing a motion to reconsider would have been "an empty formality"

In Conair, the Board, in marked contrast to this case, had specifically found that no other remedy could "dissipate the lingering effects of [Conair's] massive and unrelenting coercive conduct" which "ha[d] foreclosed any possibility of holding a fair representation election."