58 Cited authorities

N.A.A.C.P. v. Button
371 U.S. 415 (1963) Cited 2,198 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that Virginia failed to "justify the broad prohibitions" imposed through a barratry law, but enjoining the statute only as applied to the politically oriented litigating efforts of the NAACP
Harris v. Quinn
573 U.S. 616 (2014) Cited 130 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that states may not compel partial state employees to pay agency fees for union representation
People v. Carter
36 Cal.4th 1215 (Cal. 2005) Cited 283 times
Rejecting claims of bias against judge who previously worked with prosecutor and officiated the prosecutor's daughter's wedding several months before death penalty trial, along with other intermittent social and professional contacts
Brooks v. Labor Board
348 U.S. 96 (1954) Cited 299 times
Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board
Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. L.A. Cnty. Office of Educ.
57 Cal.4th 197 (Cal. 2013) Cited 163 times
Holding that the procedural protections for charter revocations under Proposition 39 and its implementing regulations "comport with due process"
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 212 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
I.A. of M. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 72 (1940) Cited 316 times
In International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."
Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
517 U.S. 781 (1996) Cited 59 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that NLRB is due "considerable deference . . . by virtue of its charge to develop national labor policy"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Financial Institution Employees, Local 1182
475 U.S. 192 (1986) Cited 76 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that labor law prohibits the assignment or transfer of a collective bargaining agreement against the wishes of the workers for whom the agreement provides representation
Sosinsky v. Grant
6 Cal.App.4th 1548 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 191 times
Holding it improper to take judicial notice of the truth of a court's factual findings where principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel do not apply
Section 186 - Restrictions on financial transactions
29 U.S.C. § 186 Cited 2,337 times 16 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting payments to labor union officials
Section 954 - Privilege established
Cal. Evid. Code § 954 Cited 400 times 4 Legal Analyses
Subject to Section 912 and except as otherwise provided in this article, the client, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer if the privilege is claimed by: (a) The holder of the privilege; (b) A person who is authorized to claim the privilege by the holder of the privilege; or (c) The person who was the lawyer at the time of the confidential communication, but such person may not
Section 2018.030 - Generally
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2018.030 Cited 98 times 7 Legal Analyses
(a) A writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discoverable under any circumstances. (b) The work product of an attorney, other than a writing described in subdivision (a), is not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party's claim or defense or will result in an injustice. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 2018.030 Added by Stats 2004 ch 182 (AB
Section 1140 - Short title
Cal. Lab. Code § 1140 Cited 83 times
This part shall be known and may be referred to as the Alatorre-Zenovich-Dunlap-Berman Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975. Ca. Lab. Code § 1140 Added by Stats. 1975, 3rd Ex. Sess., Ch. 1.
Section 1153 - Unfair labor practices; employers
Cal. Lab. Code § 1153 Cited 80 times
It shall be an unfair labor practice for an agricultural employer to do any of the following: (a) To interfere with, restrain, or coerce agricultural employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 1152. (b) To dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it. However, subject to such rules and regulations as may be made and published by the board pursuant to Section 1144, an agricultural employer shall
Section 1152 - Employee rights
Cal. Lab. Code § 1152 Cited 46 times 1 Legal Analyses
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of continued
Section 1140.2 - State policy
Cal. Lab. Code § 1140.2 Cited 27 times
It is hereby stated to be the policy of the State of California to encourage and protect the right of agricultural employees to full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment, and to be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the
Section 1140.4 - Definitions
Cal. Lab. Code § 1140.4 Cited 27 times
Defining "agricultural employee" as "those employees excluded from the coverage of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, as agricultural employees"
Section 1154 - Unfair labor practices; labor organizations
Cal. Lab. Code § 1154 Cited 16 times
It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to do any of the following: (a) To restrain or coerce: (1) Agricultural employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 1152. This paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein. (2) An agricultural employer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment
Section 1155.4 - Certain payments, loans, gifts unlawful
Cal. Lab. Code § 1155.4 Cited 2 times
It shall be unlawful for any agricultural employer or association of agricultural employers, or any person who acts as a labor relations expert, adviser, or consultant to an agricultural employer, or who acts in the interest of an agricultural employer, to pay, lend, or deliver, any money or other thing of value to any of the following: (a) Any representative of any of his agricultural employees. (b) Any agricultural labor organization, or any officer or employee thereof, which represents, seeks
Section 18700 - Basic Rule and Guide to Conflict of Interest Regulations
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 18700 Cited 6 times
(a) Basic Rule: A public official at any level of state or local government has a prohibited conflict of interest and may not make, participate in making, or in any way use or attempt to use the official's position to influence a governmental decision when the official knows or has reason to know the official has a disqualifying financial interest. A public official has a disqualifying financial interest if the decision will have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect, distinguishable

GERAWAN FARMING v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA)

58 Cited authorities

Holding that Virginia failed to "justify the broad prohibitions" imposed through a barratry law, but enjoining the statute only as applied to the politically oriented litigating efforts of the NAACP

Holding that states may not compel partial state employees to pay agency fees for union representation

Rejecting claims of bias against judge who previously worked with prosecutor and officiated the prosecutor's daughter's wedding several months before death penalty trial, along with other intermittent social and professional contacts

Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board

Holding that the procedural protections for charter revocations under Proposition 39 and its implementing regulations "comport with due process"

Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

Holding that NLRB is due "considerable deference . . . by virtue of its charge to develop national labor policy"

Holding that labor law prohibits the assignment or transfer of a collective bargaining agreement against the wishes of the workers for whom the agreement provides representation

Holding it improper to take judicial notice of the truth of a court's factual findings where principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel do not apply

Prohibiting payments to labor union officials

Defining "agricultural employee" as "those employees excluded from the coverage of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, as agricultural employees"