§

The Boeing Company

19-CA-093656 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 31, 2014)
The Boeing Company

12 Cited authorities

  1. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders

    437 U.S. 340 (1978)   Cited 4,549 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."

  2. Hickman v. Taylor

    329 U.S. 495 (1947)   Cited 6,609 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”

  3. Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.

    351 U.S. 149 (1956)   Cited 223 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

  4. KLB Industries, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    700 F.3d 551 (D.C. Cir. 2012)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 11–1280 11–1322. 2012-12-4 KLB INDUSTRIES, INC., doing business as National Extrusion and Manufacturing Co., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, Intervenor. On Petition for Review and Cross–Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Kerry P. Hastings argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner. David Seid, Attorney, National Labor

  5. Prudential Insurance Company of Am. v. N.L.R.B

    412 F.2d 77 (2d Cir. 1969)   Cited 34 times
    Recognizing that bargaining obligation "extends to . . . the administration of [CBAs] already adopted"

  6. Procter Gamble Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B

    603 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1979)   Cited 17 times

    No. 78-1716. Submitted March 12, 1979. Decided August 23, 1979. Harold S. Freeman of Dinsmore, Shohl, Coates Deupree, Cincinnati, Ohio, argued and Michael S. Glassman, Cincinnati, Ohio, on appendix and briefs, for petitioner. Edward S. Dorsey, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. argued, and Andrew E. Tranovich, Atty., John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel; John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel; Robert E. Allen, Acting Assoc. Gen. Counsel; and Elliott Moore, Deputy Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C.,

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Hawkins Const. Co.

    857 F.2d 1224 (8th Cir. 1988)   Cited 6 times
    Rejecting Board's effort to "evade" credibility-based assessment of whether union's request for information as to Company's hiring and subcontracting practices was made in good faith or to harass Company in retaliation for suit against union

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Leland Stanford Jr. University

    715 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1983)   Cited 7 times
    Enforcing order to provide union with information about employees outside the bargaining unit

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Lumber and Mill Employers Ass'n

    736 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1984)

    No. 83-7117. Argued and Submitted April 10, 1984. Decided June 27, 1984. Howard Perlstein, NLRB, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. A.K. Abraham, Robert M. Cassel, Berman, Cassel Carter, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. On Application for Enforcement of An Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before SNEED and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge. Honorable James M. Burns, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. SNEED, Circuit Judge:

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Perkins Machine Company

    326 F.2d 488 (1st Cir. 1964)   Cited 14 times

    No. 6182. January 23, 1964. Peter M. Giesey, Washington, D.C., Atty., with whom Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Solomon I. Hirsh, Washington, D.C., Atty., were on brief, for petitioner. John H. Goewey, Worcester, Mass., with whom James S. Gratton and Bowditch, Gowetz Lane, Worcester, Mass., were on brief, for respondent. Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Respondent

  11. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,675 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  12. Section 158 - Unfair labor practices

    29 U.S.C. § 158   Cited 10,333 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Granting employees a wage increase without bargaining with Local 355