§

The Courier-Journal

342 N.L.R.B. 1093 (N.L.R.B. 2004)
The Courier-Journal

13 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. Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    460 U.S. 693 (1983)   Cited 311 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights

  3. Beverly Health Rehab. Serv. v. N.L.R.B

    317 F.3d 316 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 18 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding no unfairness where the plaintiff “had every incentive to—and did—litigate the issue before the [previous court]”

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Hardesty Co., Inc.

    308 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2002)   Cited 12 times
    Noting that hardline bargaining positions can be evidence that an employer "had no intention of reaching an agreement"

  5. NATIONAL LAB. REL. BD. v. DYNATRON/BONDO

    176 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 1999)   Cited 10 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Acknowledging evidence tending to show the Board's comparators were not similarly situated to an employee who received harsher treatment, but nonetheless concluding substantial evidence supported the Board's finding

  6. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    131 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 11 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agencies are entitled to deviate from reasoning used in prior decisions

  7. Queen Mary Restaurants Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    560 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1977)   Cited 32 times
    Applying Medo to find that employer violated Act by meeting directly with employees to discuss increases in their seniority

  8. Chesapeake Potomac Telephone Co. v. N.L.R.B

    687 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1982)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that waiver of statutory rights can be effectuated only if "intent to waive is clear and unmistakable from the evidence presented"

  9. Leach Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    54 F.3d 802 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 4 times

    No. 93-1707. Argued March 24, 1995. Decided May 12, 1995. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. William H. Emer, Los Angeles, CA, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Kelly F. Watson, Los Angeles, CA. Robert J. Englehart, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, DC, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Linda R. Sher, Acting Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General

  10. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    722 F.2d 1324 (7th Cir. 1983)   Cited 13 times
    In Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., v. NLRB, 722 F.2d 1324 (7th Cir. 1983), this court held that a due process violation occurred when the respondent company was first informed of the differing charge in the General Counsel's posthearing brief filed with the ALJ prior to the ALJ's decision; in that case we concluded "that there was a clear violation of Stokely's due process rights."