§

T-MOBILE USA, INC.

28-CA-106758 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 18, 2015)
T-MOBILE USA, INC.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Beth Israel Hospital v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    437 U.S. 483 (1978)   Cited 221 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in the context of solicitation rules, such circumstances are required to justify restrictions on solicitation during nonworking time

  2. Flex Frac Logistics, L.L.C. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    746 F.3d 205 (5th Cir. 2014)   Cited 31 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a workplace rule preventing employees from discussing wage information violates § 8

  3. United States v. Kanu

    695 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2012)   Cited 12 times

    No. 10–3114. 2012-10-5 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Abdul Kassim KANU, also known as Ace, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:09–cr–00356–2). Charles J. Soschin, appointed by the court, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph R. Conte. Mark Aziz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Roy W. McLeese III, John P. Mannarino, Frederick

  4. Cintas Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    482 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 2007)   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Upholding National Labor Relations Board determination that an employer's rule that was likely to chill employees' discussion of wages constituted an unfair labor practice under the NLRA

  5. Beverly Health and Rehabilitation v. N.L.R.B

    297 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2002)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding substantial evidence in the record to support the NLRB's finding that an employer violated § 8 by suspending an employee because she engaged in protected union activities

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Johnnie's Poultry Co.

    344 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1965)   Cited 32 times   11 Legal Analyses
    In N.L.R.B. v. Johnnie's Poultry Co., 8 Cir., 344 F.2d 617, we recognized that an employer has no vested right to insist that union representation be established by a Board conducted election but we further held that an employer acting in good faith belief that a union lacked majority representation was not required to recognize and bargain with the union until such doubt was resolved.