San Diego Unions v. Garmon
359 U.S. 236 (1959) Cited 2,543 times 32 Legal AnalysesHolding 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]"
Sure-Tan, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
467 U.S. 883 (1984) Cited 408 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that NLRB could order reinstatement with back pay as a remedy for constructive discharge
Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
482 U.S. 27 (1987) Cited 364 times 12 Legal AnalysesHolding that the new employer must bargain with the old union, if the new employer is a true successor, and discussing factors
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. Weingarten, Inc.
420 U.S. 251 (1975) Cited 425 times 64 Legal AnalysesHolding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness
Communications Workers of America v. Beck
487 U.S. 735 (1988) Cited 275 times 44 Legal AnalysesHolding that non-members could not be charged "to support union activities beyond those germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment"
Ford Motor Co. (Chicago Stamping Plant) v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
441 U.S. 488 (1979) Cited 287 timesHolding that proposal concerning in-plant cafeteria prices was within duty to bargain despite fact that prices were set by third-party supplier rather than employer
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.
465 U.S. 822 (1984) Cited 202 times 9 Legal AnalysesHolding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection
In re Prather
50 Cal.4th 238 (Cal. 2010) Cited 280 timesApplying the "some evidence" standard to two lower-court decisions, reversing those decisions, and ordering remand to the Board for a new parole-suitability determination
Beth Israel Hospital v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
437 U.S. 483 (1978) Cited 219 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that, in the context of solicitation rules, such circumstances are required to justify restrictions on solicitation during nonworking time
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 493 times 34 Legal AnalysesFinding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
Section 3
Cal. Const. art. III § 3 Cited 403 timesGuaranteeing the separation of powers of the legislative and judicial branches
Section 20282 - Exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's Decision
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 20282 Cited 1 times(a) Within 20 days after the service of the decision of the administrative law judge, or within such other period as the executive secretary may direct, any party may file with the executive secretary for submission to the Board exceptions to the decision or any other part of the proceedings, with a brief in support of the exceptions, accompanied by proof of service, as provided in sections 20160, 20164, 20166, and 20169. (1) The exceptions shall state the ground for each exception, identify by page
Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply
Cal. R. 8.504 Cited 21 times(a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)