§

Town & Country Plumbing & Heating

352 N.L.R.B. 1212 (N.L.R.B. 2008)
Town & Country Plumbing & Heating

8 Cited authorities

  1. Flying Food Group v. N.L.R.B

    471 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2006)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that, in administrative proceedings, notice “is sufficient if the [petitioner] understood the issue and was afforded full opportunity to justify its conduct during the course of the litigation”

  2. Vincent Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    209 F.3d 727 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 44 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Vincent Industrial, we directed the Board to premise every bargaining order on an "explicit[ balanc[ing][of] three considerations: (1) the employees' Section 7 rights [ 29 U.S.C. § 157]; (2) whether other purposes of the [NLRA] override the rights of employees to choose their bargaining representatives; and (3) whether alternative remedies are adequate to remedy the violations of the [NLRA]]."

  3. Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    117 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that, "[b]ecause affirmative bargaining orders interfere with the employee free choice that is a core principle of the Act," we "view them with suspicion" and demand special justification for them

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Goya Foods

    525 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2008)   Cited 13 times
    Approving a decertification bar lasting up to one year

  5. Exxel/Atmos, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    28 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1994)   Cited 28 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stressing appropriateness of bargaining order to remedy bad faith bargaining during certification year

  6. Parkwood v. N.L.R.B

    521 F.3d 404 (D.C. Cir. 2008)   Cited 5 times
    Explaining that section 10(e) meant “we have no jurisdiction to entertain claim”

  7. Lee Lumber and Bldg. Material v. N.L.R.B

    310 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2002)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that this court "`review the Board's factual conclusions' only for `substantial evidence,' and must `uphold the Board's application of law to facts unless arbitrary or otherwise erroneous'" (quoting Harter Tomato Products Co. v. NLRB, 133 F.3d 934, 937 (D.C. Cir. 1998))

  8. Poole Foundry Mach. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    192 F.2d 740 (4th Cir. 1951)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Poole the court upheld the Board's bargaining order, concluding that the employer's withdrawal of recognition of the union based on a decertification petition signed by sixty-four of sixty-six employees within four months of the employer's settlement agreement with the union violated section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.