UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

Edison Co. v. Labor Board
305 U.S. 197 (1938) Cited 19,294 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay
Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.
500 U.S. 90 (1991) Cited 1,231 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding parties' legal theories not binding on Court, which "retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law"
Litton Financial Printing Division v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
501 U.S. 190 (1991) Cited 795 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
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Canning
573 U.S. 513 (2014) Cited 274 times 150 Legal Analyses
Holding that because there was no quorum of validly appointed board members, the NLRB “lacked authority to act,” and the enforcement order was therefore “void ab initio ”
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"
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board
313 U.S. 177 (1941) Cited 871 times
Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
Labor Bd. v. Greyhound Lines
303 U.S. 261 (1938) Cited 264 times
In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.
Republic Steel Corp. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 7 (1940) Cited 231 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Republic Steel, supra, the Court refused to enforce an order requiring the employer to pay the full amount of back pay to an employee who had been paid to work for the Work Projects Administration in the meantime.
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
682 F.3d 65 (D.C. Cir. 2012) Cited 17 times
Explaining that the NLRB must "give a reasoned justification for departing from its precedent"
Pleasantview Nursing Home, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
351 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2003) Cited 20 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that oral modification of a collective bargaining agreement was ineffective in the presence of "an express zipper clause prohibiting modification except by written agreement"

UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.

15 Cited authorities

Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

Holding parties' legal theories not binding on Court, which "retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law"

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 because there was no quorum of validly appointed board members, the NLRB “lacked authority to act,” and the enforcement order was therefore “void ab initio ”

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 the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.

In Republic Steel, supra, the Court refused to enforce an order requiring the employer to pay the full amount of back pay to an employee who had been paid to work for the Work Projects Administration in the meantime.

Explaining that the NLRB must "give a reasoned justification for departing from its precedent"

Holding that oral modification of a collective bargaining agreement was ineffective in the presence of "an express zipper clause prohibiting modification except by written agreement"