36 Cited authorities

  1. San Diego Unions v. Garmon

    359 U.S. 236 (1959)   Cited 2,545 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"
  2. Sure-Tan, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    467 U.S. 883 (1984)   Cited 410 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NLRB could order reinstatement with back pay as a remedy for constructive discharge
  3. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board

    313 U.S. 177 (1941)   Cited 868 times
    Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
  4. ABF Freight System, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    510 U.S. 317 (1994)   Cited 117 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that assessing the proper punishment for conduct is a policy matter
  5. Labor Board v. Seven-Up Co.

    344 U.S. 344 (1953)   Cited 367 times
    Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding
  6. Virginia Electric Co. v. Board

    319 U.S. 533 (1943)   Cited 324 times
    Stating that the purpose of the Act is to encourage and protect "full freedom of association for workers"
  7. Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board

    321 U.S. 702 (1944)   Cited 251 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.
  8. Labor Board v. Virginia Power Co.

    314 U.S. 469 (1941)   Cited 168 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Virginia Electric Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 477, 62 S.Ct. 344, 348, 86 L.Ed. 348 (1941), the Supreme court concluded that the Wagner Act could not be interpreted to prohibit an employer from exercising his First Amendment right to express his views to employees on the merits of unionization, provided the expression was neither coercive nor part of a coercive course of conduct.
  9. George Arakelian Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO)

    49 Cal.3d 1279 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 71 times
    Recognizing lawofthecase may include exceptions when " there has been an intervening change in the law, or the disputed issue was not presented or considered in the proceedings below, or application of the doctrine would result in a manifest injustice"
  10. Tex-Cal Land Management v. Agricultural Labor Rel. Bd.

    24 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 94 times
    Upholding Legislature's choice to "accord finality to the findings of a statewide agency that are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole " rather than require independent judgment review
  11. Section 160 - Prevention of unfair labor practices

    29 U.S.C. § 160   Cited 7,010 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB
  12. Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy

    29 U.S.C. § 151   Cited 5,062 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"
  13. Rule 8.1 - Title

    Cal. R. 8.1   Cited 6 times

    The rules in this title may be referred to as the Appellate Rules. All references in this title to "these rules" are to the Appellate Rules. Cal. R. Ct. 8.1 Rule 8.1 adopted effective 1/1/2007.