§

United Government Security of America International and its Local 129 (Akal Security)

367 NLRB No. 5 (N.L.R.B. 2018)
United Government Security of America International and its Local 129 (Akal Security)

7 Cited authorities

  1. Vaca v. Sipes

    386 U.S. 171 (1967)   Cited 4,209 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under the LMRA, an "individual employee has absolute right to have his grievance taken to arbitration regardless of the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement"

  2. Machinists Local v. Labor Board

    362 U.S. 411 (1960)   Cited 276 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

  3. 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

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Strong

    393 U.S. 357 (1969)   Cited 115 times
    Explaining that, though broad, the NLRA's grant of remedial power "does not authorize punitive measures"

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. C & C Plywood Corp.

    385 U.S. 421 (1967)   Cited 117 times
    Holding that the NLRB has the authority to interpret CBAs in the first instance where its interpretation is for the purpose of “enforc[ing] a statutory right which Congress considered necessary to allow labor and management to get on with the process of reaching fair terms and conditions of employment”

  6. Int'l Union v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    844 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2016)   Cited 8 times
    Recognizing three routes by which a union may be found to have breached its duty of fair representation: by conduct that is "arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith"

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second