TIME WARNER CABLE NEW YORK CITY, LLC

23 Cited authorities

Litton Financial Printing Division v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
501 U.S. 190 (1991) Cited 796 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 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"
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
Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board
350 U.S. 270 (1956) Cited 403 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"
N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 357 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Labor Board v. Fansteel Corp.
306 U.S. 240 (1939) Cited 281 times
In Fansteel, the Board awarded reinstatement with backpay to employees who engaged in a "sit down strike" that led to confrontation with local law enforcement officials.
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
Section 158 - Unfair labor practices
29 U.S.C. § 158 Cited 10,317 times 84 Legal Analyses
Granting employees a wage increase without bargaining with Local 355

TIME WARNER CABLE NEW YORK CITY, LLC

23 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 collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"

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

In Fansteel, the Board awarded reinstatement with backpay to employees who engaged in a "sit down strike" that led to confrontation with local law enforcement officials.

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

Granting employees a wage increase without bargaining with Local 355