TIME WARNER CABLE NEW YORK CITY, LLC

17 Cited authorities

Litton Financial Printing Division v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
501 U.S. 190 (1991) Cited 801 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a court must determine the validity of an arbitration agreement, it "cannot avoid that duty" just because the court must decide an issue on the merits
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 712 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"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. Weingarten, Inc.
420 U.S. 251 (1975) Cited 434 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness
N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 358 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 514 (1941) Cited 241 times 1 Legal Analyses
In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.
Labor Board v. Burnup Sims
379 U.S. 21 (1964) Cited 106 times 21 Legal Analyses
Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"
O'Neill v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
509 U.S. 904 (1993) Cited 18 times
Declining to apply the rule where "all the relevant facts were known. It was the meaning of the law that was misunderstood."
Herman v. South Carolina National Bank
140 F.3d 1413 (11th Cir. 1998) Cited 56 times
Holding that Secretary of Labor is not bound under doctrine of res judicata by the results of private ERISA litigation because of the Secretary's overriding public interest that is separate and distinct from a private litigant's interests
Bourne v. N.L.R.B
332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964) Cited 93 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.
N.L.R.B. v. W. C. McQuaide, Inc.
552 F.2d 519 (3d Cir. 1977) Cited 40 times
In McQuaide, supra, we stated flatly: "Rather than focus on either the subjective intent of the striker or the perception of the `victim,' we adopt an objective standard to determine whether conduct constitutes a threat sufficiently egregious to justify" the imposition of sanctions by the employer.
Section 158 - Unfair labor practices
29 U.S.C. § 158 Cited 10,336 times 88 Legal Analyses
Granting employees a wage increase without bargaining with Local 355

TIME WARNER CABLE NEW YORK CITY, LLC

17 Cited authorities

Holding that where a court must determine the validity of an arbitration agreement, it "cannot avoid that duty" just because the court must decide an issue on the merits

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"

Holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

Declining to apply the rule where "all the relevant facts were known. It was the meaning of the law that was misunderstood."

Holding that Secretary of Labor is not bound under doctrine of res judicata by the results of private ERISA litigation because of the Secretary's overriding public interest that is separate and distinct from a private litigant's interests

In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

In McQuaide, supra, we stated flatly: "Rather than focus on either the subjective intent of the striker or the perception of the `victim,' we adopt an objective standard to determine whether conduct constitutes a threat sufficiently egregious to justify" the imposition of sanctions by the employer.

Granting employees a wage increase without bargaining with Local 355