§

The Boeing Company

19-CA-128941 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 14, 2015)
The Boeing Company

11 Cited authorities

  1. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders

    437 U.S. 340 (1978)   Cited 4,559 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 6,613 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. Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    440 U.S. 301 (1979)   Cited 228 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union's request for employee aptitude tests was relevant to its claim, but employer's interest in preserving confidentiality was also legitimate, and disclosing the information only upon the employee's written consent was a reasonable accommodation

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 265 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"

  5. 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

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Galicks, Inc.

    671 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2012)   Cited 13 times
    Noting that "we must defer to the Board’s reasonable inferences and credibility determinations, ‘even if we would conclude differently under de novo review’ "

  7. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 150-A v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    1 F.3d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1993)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court may not certify a class without ruling that each Rule 23 requirement is met, even if a requirement overlaps with a merits issue

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Superior Protection, Inc.

    401 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2005)   Cited 3 times

    No. 04-60407 Summary Calendar. February 16, 2005. Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, David Allen Seid, Meredith Lee Jason, N.L.R.B., Washington, DC, Curtis Wells, Regional Director, N.L.R.B., Fort Worth, TX, for N.L.R.B. Michael Jay Kuper, Law Office of Michael J. Kuper, Houston, TX, for Superior Protection, Inc. Petition for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: The National Labor

  9. 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.,

  10. Florida Steel Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    601 F.2d 125 (4th Cir. 1979)   Cited 14 times
    Holding substantial evidence did not support the Board finding of discriminatory discharge where there was no evidence that the company ever applied any penalty less severe than discharge in any case involving similar or more serious misconduct on the part of another employee