§

United Parcel Service

311 N.L.R.B. 974 (N.L.R.B. 1993)
United Parcel Service

7 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

    465 U.S. 822 (1984)   Cited 206 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 265 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Interboro Contractors, Inc.

    388 F.2d 495 (2d Cir. 1967)   Cited 80 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Interboro Contractors, Inc., 388 F.2d 495, 500 (2d Cir. 1967), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that the efforts of an individual employee acting alone to enforce the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement may be deemed "concerted," and thus protected, at least when the individual's interpretation of the agreement has a reasonable basis.

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Howard Elec. Co.

    873 F.2d 1287 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 27 times

    No. 88-7107. Argued and Submitted March 15, 1989. Decided May 3, 1989. Joseph A. Oertel, Howard E. Perlstein, and Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner. David R. Gorsuch, Gorsuch, Krigis, Campbell, Walker and Grover, Denver, Colorado, for the respondent. On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before CHAMBERS, BRUNETTI and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. NOONAN, Circuit Judge: The National

  5. Jackson v. Pollick

    941 F.2d 1209 (6th Cir. 1991)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that the contract-specification defense applied when "eighty-five pages of specifications [were] given by General Motors to defendant" detailing how to manufacture the product

  6. Curtiss-Wright, Wright Aero. Div. v. N.L.R.B

    347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965)   Cited 55 times
    Noting the Board has "considerable leeway in amplifying or expanding certain details not specifically set forth in the complaint if they accord with the general substance of the complaint"

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Designcraft Jewel Industries, Inc.

    675 F.2d 493 (2d Cir. 1982)   Cited 6 times

    No. 652, Docket 81-4142. Argued February 8, 1982. Decided March 23, 1982. Ruth Ihne, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliot Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for petitioner N.L.R.B. Stanley Israel, New York City (Kliegman, Goldstein, Israel Cooper, New York City, of counsel), for respondent Designcraft Jewel Industries, Inc. Petition for