§

S.M.K. Mining and Construction

306 N.L.R.B. 718 (N.L.R.B. 1992)
S.M.K. Mining and Construction

6 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

    465 U.S. 822 (1984)   Cited 206 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection

  2. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 357 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  3. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

  4. Mushroom Transportation Company v. N.L.R.B

    330 F.2d 683 (3d Cir. 1964)   Cited 48 times
    In Mushroom Transportation Co. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 683, 685 (3d Cir. 1964), we held that to qualify as concerted activity "it must appear at the very least that [the conduct] was engaged in with the object of initiating or inducing or preparing for group action or that it had some relation to group action in the interest of the employees."

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Vought Corp.—MLRS Systems Division

    788 F.2d 1378 (8th Cir. 1986)   Cited 9 times

    No. 85-1271. Submitted November 15, 1985. Decided April 21, 1986. John B. Shepard, Dallas, Tex., for respondent. Jesse Gill, of the N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Petition from National Labor Relations Board. Before HEANEY, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges. HEANEY, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order which found that Vought Corporation — MLRS Systems Division (the Company) committed several violations of sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3)

  6. Ontario Knife Co. v. N.L.R.B

    637 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1980)   Cited 10 times
    Interpreting Weingarten