§

Tony Roma's Restaurant

325 N.L.R.B. 851 (N.L.R.B. 1998)
Tony Roma's Restaurant

9 Cited authorities

  1. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

    487 U.S. 1205 (1988)   Cited 107 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

  2. Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.

    370 U.S. 9 (1962)   Cited 206 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

  3. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

  4. Holo-Krome Company v. N.L.R.B

    954 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 23 times
    Denying petition for rehearing

  5. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 27 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

  6. Consolidated Freightways v. N.L.R.B

    892 F.2d 1052 (D.C. Cir. 1989)   Cited 13 times
    Recognizing "a general principle" that retroactive application of rules is permitted "absent any manifest injustice"

  7. Holo-Krome Co. v. N.L.R.B

    947 F.2d 588 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 3 times

    Nos. 163, 322, Dockets 91-4061, 91-4085. Argued September 11, 1991. Decided October 15, 1991. Opinion on Denial of Rehearing Filed January 17, 1992. Burton Kainen, Hartford, Conn. (Diana Garfield, Siegel, O'Connor, Schiff, Zangari Kainen, P.C., on the brief), for petitioner-cross-respondent. Marilyn O'Rourke, Washington, D.C. (Jerry M. Hunter, Gen. Counsel, D. Randall Frye, Acting Deputy Gen. Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, and William R. Stewart, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel

  8. Pacific Electricord v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    361 F.2d 310 (9th Cir. 1966)   Cited 14 times

    No. 20276. April 26, 1966. Sweeney, Irwin, Cozy Foye, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Warren M. Davison, Martin R. Ganzglass, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before MERRILL and BROWNING, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge. PER CURIAM. Upon an examination of the whole record we conclude that there was substantial evidence from which the Board could infer

  9. Rule 804 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-When the Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 804   Cited 4,078 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing an exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule when the party against whom the statement is offered has engaged in wrongdoing which procures the unavailability of the declarant