§

Teamsters Local Union 200

30-CB-005303 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 21, 2010)
Teamsters Local Union 200

10 Cited authorities

  1. Vaca v. Sipes

    386 U.S. 171 (1967)   Cited 4,209 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under the LMRA, an "individual employee has absolute right to have his grievance taken to arbitration regardless of the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement"

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 652 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the employer bears the burden of negating causation in a mixed-motive discrimination case, noting "[i]t is fair that [the employer] bear the risk that the influence of legal and illegal motives cannot be separated."

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America

    391 U.S. 418 (1968)   Cited 215 times
    Holding that union could not expel member because he filed unfair labor practice charge against it without first exhausting internal remedies as provided in union constitution

  4. 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

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Adco Electric Inc.

    6 F.3d 1110 (5th Cir. 1993)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that employee "recommend[ing] someone for hire and [bringing] problems with apprentice employees to the attention of [his superior] is nothing more than what [the employer] would expect from experienced employees"

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 46

    149 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 6 times

    No. 97-4021. Argued September 25, 1997. Decided June 26, 1998. On March 22, 1996, the National Labor Relations Board entered a remedial order after finding that Local 46, Metallic Lathers Union and Reinforcing Iron Workers of New York and Vicinity, had committed certain unfair labor practices in violation of sections 8(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2). The Board petitions for a decree enforcing that order. Because the Board's finding of

  7. Boilermakers Local No. 374 v. N.L.R.B

    852 F.2d 1353 (D.C. Cir. 1988)   Cited 13 times
    In Boilermakers, 852 F.2d at 1353, and later in Plumbers Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 32 v. NLRB, 50 F.3d 29, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1995), this court set forth the parameters of the heightened duty standard in hiring hall cases.

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Limestone Apparel Corp.

    705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982)   Cited 3 times

    No. 81-1693. October 29, 1982. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Jacob Oliner, Oliner Oliner, New York City, for respondent. Petition to Enforce an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before LIVELY, KRUPANSKY and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges. ORDER This cause comes before the Court upon the motion of the intervenor, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, for an order enforcing the order of the National Labor Relations Board in Limestone

  9. Section 158 - Unfair labor practices

    29 U.S.C. § 158   Cited 10,317 times   84 Legal Analyses
    Granting employees a wage increase without bargaining with Local 355

  10. Section 160 - Prevention of unfair labor practices

    29 U.S.C. § 160   Cited 7,062 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB