29 Cited authorities

  1. San Diego Unions v. Garmon

    359 U.S. 236 (1959)   Cited 2,399 times   13 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. Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    482 U.S. 27 (1987)   Cited 334 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the new employer must bargain with the old union, if the new employer is a true successor, and discussing factors
  3. Sure-Tan, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    467 U.S. 883 (1984)   Cited 361 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NLRB could order reinstatement with back pay as a remedy for constructive discharge
  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. Weingarten, Inc.

    420 U.S. 251 (1975)   Cited 394 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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
  5. Communications Workers of America v. Beck

    487 U.S. 735 (1988)   Cited 258 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal district court may decide whether an activity is an unfair labor practice under the NLRA when the matter is raised as a defense to a claim under an independent federal remedy over which the federal district courts do have jurisdiction
  6. Ford Motor Co. (Chicago Stamping Plant) v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    441 U.S. 488 (1979)   Cited 278 times
    Holding 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
  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

    465 U.S. 822 (1984)   Cited 196 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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
  8. Beth Israel Hospital v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    437 U.S. 483 (1978)   Cited 209 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in the context of solicitation rules, such circumstances are required to justify restrictions on solicitation during nonworking time
  9. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board

    324 U.S. 793 (1945)   Cited 482 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
  10. In re Prather

    50 Cal.4th 238 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 178 times
    Holding that Board violated due process and petitioner only entitled to new hearing not release on parole
  11. Section 20282 - Exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's Decision

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 20282

    (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 the original and seven copies of exceptions to the decision or any other part of the proceedings, with an original and seven copies of a brief in support of the exceptions, accompanied by proof of service, as provided in section 20160, 20166 and 20169. (1) The exceptions

  12. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 13 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)