Waterbury Hospital

21 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Laughlin
301 U.S. 1 (1937) Cited 1,499 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis
Belknap, Inc. v. Hale
463 U.S. 491 (1983) Cited 277 times
Holding that the NLRA does not preempt state law contract actions by replacement workers to enforce terms of an employment contract
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.
388 U.S. 26 (1967) Cited 322 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp.
373 U.S. 221 (1963) Cited 358 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.
389 U.S. 375 (1967) Cited 233 times
In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.
Labor Board v. Mackay Co.
304 U.S. 333 (1938) Cited 535 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices
SCM Corp. v. Advance Business Systems & Supply Co.
397 U.S. 920 (1970) Cited 200 times 5 Legal Analyses
Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants
489 U.S. 426 (1989) Cited 114 times
Noting that, "[f]rom the time of our very first opportunity to interpret the 1934 amendments, we have viewed them as addressing primarily the precertification rights and freedoms of unorganized employees"
Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.
309 U.S. 350 (1940) Cited 315 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA
Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.
864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 222 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that because the record established such a strong case of obviousness based on the teachings of the prior art, the fact that the product was successful does not overcome the conclusion of obviousness

Waterbury Hospital

21 Cited authorities

Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis

Holding that the NLRA does not preempt state law contract actions by replacement workers to enforce terms of an employment contract

Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"

In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.

Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices

Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances

Noting that, "[f]rom the time of our very first opportunity to interpret the 1934 amendments, we have viewed them as addressing primarily the precertification rights and freedoms of unorganized employees"

Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA

Holding that because the record established such a strong case of obviousness based on the teachings of the prior art, the fact that the product was successful does not overcome the conclusion of obviousness