WISCONSIN BELL, INC. ("AT&T WISCONSIN")

7 Cited authorities

  1. Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    460 U.S. 693 (1983)   Cited 314 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights
  2. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board

    324 U.S. 793 (1945)   Cited 495 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
  3. S. New Eng. Tel. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    793 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2015)   Cited 4 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Invoking t-shirt's “straightforward” message and employer's consequently reasonable belief as to the impact of that message on customer relations
  4. Meijer, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Bd.

    130 F.3d 1209 (6th Cir. 1997)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that under the balancing test in Republic Aviation, 324 U.S. 793, 65 S.Ct. 982, 89 L.Ed. 1372, "employees have a right to wear union insignia" on employerowned uniforms
  5. United Parcel Service v. N.L.R.B

    41 F.3d 1068 (6th Cir. 1994)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In United Parcel Serv. v. NLRB, 41 F.3d 1068 (6th Cir. 1994), we held that the employer's refusal to allow employees to wear union pins, while allowing the wearing of other pins, did not constitute discrimination in violation of Section(s) 8(a)(1).
  6. N.L.R.B. v. Harrah's Club

    337 F.2d 177 (9th Cir. 1964)   Cited 17 times
    In NLRB v. Harrah's Club, 337 F.2d 177 (9th Cir. 1964) (Harrah's Club), we reviewed a National Labor Relations Board (Board) order that concluded that section 7 of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), granted a casino's public contact uniformed employees a right to wear union buttons or pins, even though the wearing of the union buttons was not part of any concerted campaign to organize the employees, promote collective bargaining, or gain better working conditions.
  7. N.L.R.B. v. Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc.

    318 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1963)   Cited 11 times

    No. 20081. June 7, 1963. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Hans J. Lehmann, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. L. Robert Frank, Tampa, Fla., for respondent. Before RIVES, LEWIS, and BELL, Circuit Judges. Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. GRIFFIN B. BELL, Circuit Judge. This case presents a novel question: May an employer with no discriminatory purpose prohibit the wearing of pins indicating union membership or status