Star Tribune

34 Cited authorities

Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.
415 U.S. 36 (1974) Cited 2,877 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that workers may bring Title VII discrimination claims in federal court notwithstanding an arbitration provision in a CBA
San Diego Unions v. Garmon
359 U.S. 236 (1959) Cited 2,558 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"
Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass
404 U.S. 157 (1971) Cited 630 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit
Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board
379 U.S. 203 (1964) Cited 731 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 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"
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
460 U.S. 693 (1983) Cited 311 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights
Ford Motor Co. (Chicago Stamping Plant) v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
441 U.S. 488 (1979) Cited 288 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that proposal concerning in-plant cafeteria prices was within duty to bargain despite fact that prices were set by third-party supplier rather than employer
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board
313 U.S. 177 (1941) Cited 871 times
Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
440 U.S. 301 (1979) Cited 228 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 265 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"

Star Tribune

34 Cited authorities

Holding that workers may bring Title VII discrimination claims in federal court notwithstanding an arbitration provision in a CBA

Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"

Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit

Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

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 a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights

Holding that proposal concerning in-plant cafeteria prices was within duty to bargain despite fact that prices were set by third-party supplier rather than employer

Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores

Approving "discovery-type standard"