Shaw's Supermarkets and Star Markets

29 Cited authorities

DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Trades Council
485 U.S. 568 (1988) Cited 729 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union’s distribution of handbills at the entrances of a shopping mall was not threatening, coercing, or restraining within meaning of section 8(b) because there had been "no violence, picketing, or patrolling," and "no suggestion that the leaflets had any coercive effect on customers of the mall"
Hudgens v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
424 U.S. 507 (1976) Cited 543 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding picketers "did not have a First Amendment right to enter [a privately owned] shopping center for the purpose of advertising their strike"
Food Employees v. Logan Plaza
391 U.S. 308 (1968) Cited 379 times
Extending Marsh to cover a private shopping center to the extent that it sought to restrict speech about its businesses
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
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.
351 U.S. 105 (1956) Cited 294 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Town & Country Electric, Inc.
516 U.S. 85 (1995) Cited 85 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding "employee," as defined by the NLRA, "does not exclude paid union organizers"
Patel v. Scotland Memorial Hosp
91 F.3d 132 (4th Cir. 1996) Cited 55 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a realtor association's database was not a “trade secret” because it had been “distributed widely to its realtor members and potential purchasers”
Batchelder v. Allied Stores International, Inc.
388 Mass. 83 (Mass. 1983) Cited 69 times
Holding that article 9 of the Massachusetts constitution applies to the conduct of private persons
Bourne v. N.L.R.B
332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964) Cited 93 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.
Section 266:120 - Entry upon private property after being forbidden as trespass; prima facie evidence; penalties; arrest; tenants or occupants excepted
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266 § 120 Cited 82 times
Making it a crime to enter or remain in a building "having been forbidden so to do by the person who has lawful control of said premises"

Shaw's Supermarkets and Star Markets

29 Cited authorities

Holding picketers "did not have a First Amendment right to enter [a privately owned] shopping center for the purpose of advertising their strike"

Extending Marsh to cover a private shopping center to the extent that it sought to restrict speech about its businesses

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

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot

Holding "employee," as defined by the NLRA, "does not exclude paid union organizers"

Holding that a realtor association's database was not a “trade secret” because it had been “distributed widely to its realtor members and potential purchasers”

Holding that article 9 of the Massachusetts constitution applies to the conduct of private persons

In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

Making it a crime to enter or remain in a building "having been forbidden so to do by the person who has lawful control of said premises"