§

Tesoro Los Angeles Refinery

360 N.L.R.B. 293 (N.L.R.B. 2014)
Tesoro Los Angeles Refinery

7 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. N.L.R.B. v. U.S. Postal Service

    8 F.3d 832 (D.C. Cir. 1993)   Cited 50 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Upholding postal service's exercise of contractual right to reduce employees' hours in response to budget reduction

  3. Bath Marine v. N.L.R.B

    475 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2007)   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a motion for reconsideration was not required to exhaust where the Board had "adequate notice" of the party's position

  4. Jackson Hosp. Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    647 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining that “[l]ong ago” the NLRB “clarified” that an employee has no right to bring a witness to a meeting, the “sole purpose” of which is to deliver a predetermined warning

  5. Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceuticals Div. v. N.L.R.B

    722 F.2d 1120 (3d Cir. 1983)   Cited 17 times
    In Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceuticals Division v. NLRB, 722 F.2d 1120 (3d Cir. 1983), the court rejected an argument that an "extracontractual residual rights" theory allowed imposition of attendance rules.

  6. N.L.R.B. v. National Research Group

    21 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 7 times
    Recognizing Cooper as the controlling authority in NIED claims resulting from property damage

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second