Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query labor NLRB returned 1591 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: The question before us is whether a state's exercise of its sovereign power to control the use of its funds conflicts with national labor policy as expressed in the National Labor Relations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER Line 6 after first indented quotation the citation for So Lo Foods is corrected to begin
	OPINION/ORDER Was awarded compensatory damages for lost earnings. At least to the extent such earnings were based on pay rates in the United States rather than in the worker's native country. Affordable and Mountain are now joined by third party defendant Silva. 3 In addition. Arguing that the document relied on by these third party plaintiffs to support their indemnification claim is not an enforceable contract. Is not authorized by IRCA under any circumstance. (2) it was the employer rather than the worker who knowingly violated IRCA in arranging for the employment. (3) the jury was instructed to consider the worker's removeability in deciding what. Because we conclude that appellants' and cross appellants' other arguments are also without merit. Madeira's Employment and Injury Plaintiff Jose Raimundo Madeira 1 is a citizen of Brazil who illegally entered the United States in 1998. Madeira was earning approximately $15 per hour in the United States and working as many as 50 hours per week. Such action was apparently unnecessary given his brother's willingness to hire him despite knowing Madeira's undocumented status.
	OPINION/ORDER Found Pleasantview to have engaged in a series of unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER Line 2 the word
	OPINION/ORDER The banners are located so that they are visible to customers of businesses that deal with certain contractors who do not have union contracts. While the banners are displayed. Local Union Number 1506 (
	OPINION/ORDER We are asked to decide if a
	OPINION/ORDER The question presented is whether California Assembly Bill 1889. Is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.1 As we explain. The California statute chills employers from exercising their free speech rights that are explicitly protected by Congress under the National Labor Relations Act. That the use of the state spending power is rarely a defense to state interference with the National Labor Relations Act. 290 91 (1986) (emphasizing that Congress would not have intended to allow states to interfere with the NLRA
	OPINION/ORDER The factual discussion that follows is drawn from the ALJ's findings. The Union was recognized in 1967 as the exclusive representative of: All production and maintenance employees. Successive collective bargaining agreements were in place from the time the Union was organized in 1967 until 1994 when the present dispute arose. The Union and Pirelli entered into negotiations for a new contract to replace the agreement that was due to expire at midnight on May 1. The President explained that its paper cable product was no longer viable and that Pirelli's overall profitability had been reduced. The Union was not inclined to accept the proposed reductions in pay and benefits and stated that it was
	OPINION/ORDER Murphy and Menard Murphy & Walsh were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. On the basis that the action was preempted by federal law. While Doulamis is not named as the aggrieved employee in these charges. Both parties agree that the employee referred to therein is. It is also alleged that these employees formed. That Chaulk's conduct was a deliberate attempt to discourage the employees from engaging in these activities. A full and comprehensive settlement agreement was reached between Chaulk and the NLRB in March 1995 regarding these claims. In that the
	OPINION/ORDER The district court held that enforcement of section 211 a is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. We reverse the grant of summary judgment because we conclude that there are disputed issues of fact. The legislature hereby finds and declares that sound fiscal management requires vigilance to ensure that funds appropriated by the legislature for the purchase of goods and provision of needed services are ultimately expended solely for the purpose for which they were appropriated. The legislature finds and declares that when public funds are appropriated for the purchase of specific goods and/or the provision of needed services. Those funds are instead used to encourage or discourage union organization. The proprietary interests of this state are adversely affected. Which should be utilized solely for the public purpose for which they were appropriated. 2. Or (c) hire employees or pay the salary and other compensation of employees whose principal job duties are to encourage or discourage union organization.
	02-9507 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. INTERSTATE BUILDERS, INC. -- 11/26/2003 Chief Circuit Judge.
	02-9507A -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. INTERSTATE BUILDERS, INC. -- 11/26/2003 Chief Circuit Judge.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Andrew M. With him on the brief 2 were Arthur F. With him on the brief was Ira J. When it was notified of the election petition. It will be very difficult. (3) creating the impression among employees that their union activities were under surveillance. That they would lose benefits if the Union were elected. The Board's findings of fact are conclusive
	OPINION/ORDER During which the Sam's workers cast votes indicating whether they desired Union representation.1 The factual discussion that follows is drawn from the ALJ's findings. A. As employees and management at Sam's were gearing up for the election. Union matters were a frequent topic of conversation. While they were alone in an office that she hoped that the Union won the elec 1 The employees voted against Union representation by a vote of 88 to 52. 2 According to the testimony of Sam's general manager Kent Kramer. This organizing campaign was the first attempt by a union to organize in the retail divisions of Wal Mart Stores. 3 tion. It is not clear from the record which of the two women actually made the statement that she thought Sam's would close.
	BROWN ANTHONY ET AL V. PRO FTBL INC
	DOUGLAS FOODS CORP V. NLRB Argued the cause for respondent.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Leonard R. The NLRB's findings in relation to these transactions are inadequate. The accompanying restoration order is beyond the scope of the Board's remedial authority.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. (2) some of the unfair labor practices found by the Board are unsupported by substantial evidence and (3) Flamingo was denied its due process right to a neutral decisionmaker. We grant in part Flamingo's petition for review and deny the NLRB's applica tion for enforcement of its Gissel order and two of its unfair 1 A Gissel order is one requiring an employer to bargain with a union and is issued
	OPINION/ORDER 2002 is amended to include docket number 00 70189. Which was inadvertently omitted from the opinion caption. Establishes an elaborate and complicated structure that governs labor relations in almost all of the industries within the nation's private sector.1 Collective bargaining is the central concern of that structure. Labor unions are essential to the collective bargaining process. That helps secure the role of unions in the collective bargaining process by permitting 1 The National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935 and significantly amended in 1947. The railroad industry is covered separately by the Railway Labor Act (
	97-9509 -- ALBERTSON'S INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 11/10/1998 Contending that the NLRB's section 8(a)(1) holdings are contrary to law and not supported by substantial evidence. Distribute literature or use sound devices on Company premises at any time. Employees who are working should not be disturbed. Unauthorized presence of any employee in the non selling areas of the store or in other non public areas of our facility for any purpose is strictly prohibited unless the employee is on duty. Or while the person(s) he or she is soliciting is on working time. Store director Dan Yeazel informed Dahl that he was displeased about Dahl's union organizing activities. When Dahl asked Yeazel's permission to speak with employees in the break room while they were off the clock. Grocery manager John Binger told Pesek that such solicitation on the sales floor or while Pesek was on the clock violated company policy. In July 1995. Several of which were those of supervisors. Wehner and his colleagues solicited signatures while they were themselves on the clock and solicited others who were on the clock. It is also clear that several Albertson's supervisors witnessed and participated in on the clock solicitation for the decertification petition.
	ADTRANZ ABB DAIMLER-BENZ TRANSPORTATION, N.A., INC., V. NLRB Ross argued the cause for petitioner.
	GIBSON GREETINGS INC V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Christopher J. With him on the brief were Leonard R. With him on the brief was Eric Borgerson. We vacate the NLRB's unfair labor practice determinations as they are utterly without merit. As it is not a reviewable final order. Adtranz distributed a new employee handbook contain ing
	OPINION/ORDER 1 upheld the decision of its Administrative Law Judge (
	CHARLOTTE APHTR CORP V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER Labor Ready is a temporary employment agency with over 200 offices nationwide. Applications are kept on file. Workers who have submitted applications (
	OPINION/ORDER We have been asked to review (1) whether Petitioners (collectively. (2) whether the labor strike was an
	OPINION/ORDER We will deny enforcement of the Board's bargaining order and remand the case to the Board to conduct an evidentiary hearing on St. Francis's objection to the second election. possible that the Board's determination that the Biddle letter does not constitute a violation of the Act is correct. Francis is favored on the question of timing. The timing of the letter and some of the other circumstances of this case are not unlike those in Dayton Hudson Department Store Co. v. A letter with substantial misrepresentations was mailed to employees three days before the election. The writers of the letter were known to be allied with the union. It may have had a sufficient opportunity to do so. Was able to effectively respond). The extent of the misrepresentation in this case is disputed. Francis alleges it was significant. Whether employees were affected by the alleged misrepresentation is unclear. Francis has provided scant evidence that employees were affected by the letter. Mindful that no set of factors governs whether or not an evidentiary hearing is necessary.
	OPINION/ORDER This is a case of one upmanship gone wrong. Is the publisher of the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News. Is a bargaining unit made up of drivers and maintenance workers. The drivers' job is to pick up the newly printed newspapers at the Daily News facility and deliver them to various distribution points in the area. A daily newspaper is a highly perishable commodity. If it is not delivered on time. The relationship between the newspaper and the Union was affected by two important developments. DNI was building a new printing facility outside Dayton to replace its downtown building. The Bonus was contingent on the employees
	OPINION/ORDER The operating profit for the first six months of 1995 was $1. All was not well at the Northumberland plant. Said that the company was prepared to endure a strike to achieve this goal. If subcontracting and mandatory overtime were not allowed. He later emphasized to a group of workers that closing the plant was
	OPINION/ORDER Kirsanow is substituted for his predecessor. Meisburg is substituted for his predecessor. Argued the case and was on the briefs for appellants AMERCO. Were on the briefs. Argued the case and was on the briefs for all the appellees. Moskowitz were on the briefs. Circuit Judge: We must address a question that we have never explicitly addressed: whether a district court has jurisdiction to enjoin 9230 AMERCO v. NLRB an ongoing unfair labor practices hearing when one party asserts that it has not been accorded all the process it is due. Because the answer is squarely controlled by Myers v. In accordance with Myers and all of our sister circuits that have considered this question. Is the exclusive mechanism for federal court review of decisions made in unfair labor practice hearings. The
	OPINION/ORDER Establishes an elaborate and complicated structure that governs labor relations in almost all of the industries within the nation's private sector.1 Collective bargaining is the 1 The National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935 and significantly amended in 1947. Labor unions are essential to the collective bargaining process. That helps secure the role of unions in the collective bargaining process by permitting unions and employers to enter into agreements requiring employees to become union members.2 It is the interpretation of that provision that is at issue in this case. The railroad industry is covered separately by the Railway Labor Act (
	OPINION/ORDER The contesting parties in this case are two labor organizations who vied for the right to represent the nurses at eight health care facilities in Pennsylvania and Delaware. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings for PSEA on nine of the claims on the ground that they were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. PNA is both a professional association of nurses and a nurses' labor union. PSEA is a school employees' labor union. Who were still employees of PNA. PNA also contends that the individual defendants who were its former labor representatives failed to negotiate in good faith successor collective bargaining agreements on behalf of their PNA units. PSEA removed the case to federal court on the ground that some of the claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). X and XI to the extent that they were based on conduct covered by the NLRA. Concluding that these claims were not preempted. We must consider the jurisdictional question even where the parties are prepared to concede it.
	OPINION/ORDER Leo were on brief. Jill A. Were on brief. James B. Hiatt were on brief for amicus curiae American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Before: Henderson. NLRB) finding that Ross violated section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act) when (1) it discharged an employee on account of his union support and (2) its supervisor informed the same employee that no soliciting was allowed on company premises. We uphold the Board's finding as to the discharge because it is supported by substantial evidence and set aside its finding regarding the solicitation admonition because it is time barred under section 10(b) of the Act. Three incidents during the organizing campaign were alleged below to constitute unfair labor practices by Ross. First. He removed the postings and later admonished each of them separately that
	OPINION/ORDER Air conditioning) workers who are represented by the Sheet Metal Workers' Union. Plumbing is a small part of Center's business. The owner and president of the business was Robert Eagleson. He testified that what he said was:
	OPINION/ORDER Leo were on brief. Were on brief. Hiatt were on brief for amicus curiae American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Before: Henderson. NLRB) finding that Ross violated section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act) when (1) it discharged an employee on account of his union support and (2) its supervisor informed the same employee that no soliciting was allowed on company premises. We uphold the Board's finding as to the discharge because it is supported by substantial evidence and set aside its finding regarding the solicitation admonition because it is time barred under section 10(b) of the Act. Three incidents during the organizing campaign were alleged below to constitute unfair labor practices by Ross. He removed the postings and later admonished each of them separately that
	99-9533A -- MJ METAL PRODUCTS INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 07/10/2001 Is granted. A copy of the published opinion is attached to this order. Entered for the Court. BACKGROUND The relevant facts are fully set forth in the administrative law judge's decision. Johnston told both men that they were not performing their jobs adequately. On September 26. Johnston's retracting an agreement to allow an employee (Earl Anthony Sanchez) to take time off because he was a union adherent. (10) remarks by an MJ Metal salesman that unionization would result in the sale and closure of the company. The administrative law judge further concluded that these unfair labor practices were
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Coleman were on brief. That an economic strike of its employees was converted into an unfair labor practice strike following an incident of direct dealing between Ryan's president and one of its workers. We affirm the Board's order with respect to the unfair labor practices but hold that the record lacks substantial support for the finding that the strike was converted prior to its termination on December 8. We grant the Board's application in part only.
	OPINION/ORDER The strike was staged solely for economic reasons. The National Labor Relations Board concluded that the strikers were motivated in part by unfair labor practices. Thus were entitled to immediate reinstatement under Sections 8(a)(3) 2 Nos. 02 2209 & 02 2566 and (a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER We are referring to it as modified. 2 The Act is codified at 29 U.S.C. �� 151 169. � 8(a)(1) is codified at 29 U.S.C. � 158(a)(1). 1 ANHEUSER BUSCH. Certain of Busch's employees are represented by the Brewery Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The charges were consolidated into a complaint against Busch (the
	OPINION/ORDER The Regional Director contends that the district court abused its discretion in finding that (1) the Union did not have the support of a majority of the employees of Stephen Dunn & Associates (
	OPINION/ORDER Line 3 counsel's name is corrected to read
	OPINION/ORDER The Regional Director contends that the district court abused its discretion in finding that (1) the Union did not have the support of a majority of the employees of Stephen Dunn & Associates (
	OPINION/ORDER Because we find that the NLRB did not abuse its discretion and the underlying decision of the regional office was supported by substantial evidence. We will grant the NLRB's petition for enforcement and deny Guardian's petition for review. The business of the armored car division is conducted out of three branch offices. Which have approximately 60 employees each. The three branch offices are strategically located to serve Guardian's customers in Michigan and northwest Ohio. Highland Park and Mount Morris are approximately 75 miles apart. Highland Park and Comstock Park are approximately 190 miles apart. Morris are approximately 100 miles apart. Both officers are in regular contact with all divisions and branches. Hugh Adams (
	OPINION/ORDER The issue for our consideration is whether Hospitality Care was guilty of an unfair labor practice when. We will deny the NLRB's petition for enforcement of its order. We will grant Hospitality Care's petition for review. We will remand this case to the NLRB to permit it to determine whether. There was some confusion regarding the request and Hospitality Care did not supply the information. Because it was having difficulty obtaining reimbursement from the state of New Jersey. It needed to have a total wage freeze for the first year of the new agreement. Hospitality Care indicated that it was still in the process of compiling the information. The Union contacted Hospitality Care and requested the employee information as well as permission to audit Hospitality Care's financial records in order to verify that Hospitality Care was unable to afford a first year wage increase. An employee will file such a petition with a Regional Office of the NLRB in order to terminate the recognized union's status as bargaining representative.
	OPINION/ORDER The Regional Director contends that the district court abused its discretion in finding that (1) the Union did not have the support of a majority of the employees of Stephen Dunn & Associates (
	OPINION/ORDER The Regional Director contends that the district court abused its discretion in finding that (1) the Union did not have the support of a majority of the employees of Stephen Dunn & Associates (
	OPINION/ORDER By denying access to its property to persons who were employed at another facility owned by Petitioner. By maintaining a policy of denying off duty employees access to the outside non working areas of the facilities where they were employed. Because there is substantial evidence to support the Board's findings of fact. Because there are no errors of law1 in the decision. The dissent's contention that we failed to apply a de novo standa rd to the Board 's legal co nclusions is simply wrong. 1 September 22. A trial was held before Administrative Law Judge (
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief were Linda Sher. With her on the brief were Jonathan P. When the Board learned that one of these employees was an undocumented alien. It denied him reinstatement and terminated his backpay as of the date the employer discovered he was unauthorized to work. Because the Supreme Court has held that undocumented workers are protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Because the limited reme dy awarded here is within the Board's discretion and furthers the purposes of both labor and immigration law.
	OVERNITE TRANS CO V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER We conclude that American did not have a legal obligation to negotiate with or recognize its collectivebargaining partners upon the expiration of their respective agreements. Because we conclude that the Board's findings of unlawful discrimination against union members in violation of section 8(a)(3) and (a)(1) are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. I. American is an Owing Mills. C.I.O. is a sprinkler fitters' union with near nationwide geographic jurisdiction. Which was accompanied by fringe benefit forms demonstrating majority union membership. Confirmed that a clear majority of the sprinkler 3 fitters in its employ have designated. Are members of. Are represented by . . . [American] therefore unconditionally acknowledges and confirms that Local 669 is the exclusive bargaining representative of its sprinkler fitter employees pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act. Which was then American's bargaining representative. Which was effective from June 1. American notified both Local 669 and 536 that it was withdrawing bargaining authority from the NFSA and intended thereafter to bargain independently with the unions.
	99-9533 -- MJ METAL PRODUCTS INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 07/10/2001 BACKGROUND The relevant facts are fully set forth in the administrative law judge's decision. Johnston told both men that they were not performing their jobs adequately. On September 26. Johnston's retracting an agreement to allow an employee (Earl Anthony Sanchez) to take time off because he was a union adherent. (10) remarks by an MJ Metal salesman that unionization would result in the sale and closure of the company. The administrative law judge further concluded that these unfair labor practices were
	OPINION/ORDER Angel Mu oz Noya and Lespier & Mu oz Noya were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER At ultimate issue is the defendant employers' failure to hire the employees engaged at the site from the plaintiff union's hiring hall. The parties have been ceaselessly embroiled in this matter for over eight years. During this time they have appeared before the district court thrice and an arbitrator once. They are now before this Court for the third time. Given what appears to us to be the relatively modest stakes and the fact that the primary point of contention in the case will probably never recur. [fn2] it is unfortunate that their litigation strategies have prevented them from settling. We can only hope that the opinion that follows will edge them toward a swift resolution of their remaining disputes instead of propelling them back to the arbitrator for another round of pugnacious battle. One we will answer in the affirmative. Is whether the district court erred in not applying retrospectively the National Labor Relation Board's decision in John Deklewa & Sons. A host of other questions is also before us.
	OPINION/ORDER Robert Caldwell was a warehouse clerk for Meijer at its Tipp City. Are members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1099 (the Union). Caldwell was unsatisfied with his union representation1 and endeavored to replace the current union with a new one. This activity was interrupted when Chris Cullen. Complaining loudly and with vulgarity that the employees were already represented by a labor union. Cullen told Evans that someone was bothering people in the distribution lot. This last stop was impromptu. Therefore Caldwell's truck was not parked in a marked space. Evans asked whether he was on the clock and what he was doing. Caldwell testified that he told Evans that he was soliciting for Real Union. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) credited Evans's conflicting testimony that Caldwell never answered his question concerning
	OPINION/ORDER P.C. were on brief for Appellant.
	OPINION/ORDER The Davis Bacon Act was designed for the benefit of construction workers on government projects. Claiming that the NLRB's order was not supported by substantial evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. � 160(e). Will enforce the NLRB's order. ONECA is comprised of many electrical company members. The MRP created a fund that was used to subsidize union employees' wages so that union contractors could bid competitively on projects. The MRP pool was created solely through the funds paid by employees who worked under the Local 48 ONECA agreement. Was a member of Local 48. While he was working at Kingston. Mulcahy paid the arrears to Local 48 and was reinstated at Kingston without losing any pay. Mulcahy was employed with L.K. Mulcahy paid the amount before Local 48 attempted to have him fired. Mulcahy claimed his termination was for reasons other than
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Ryan D. With her on the brief were Leonard R. With him on the brief were Jonathan P. Hiatt and Laurence Gold. . When the Board learned that one discriminatee was an undocumented alien. * Senior Judge Silberman was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. A compliance hearing was held before another ALJ. Castro appeared at the hearing. Not before Castro had stated that he was a Mexican national and that the birth certificate he had used to gain employment at Hoffman was borrowed from a friend. Arguing primarily that awards of backpay to undocumented discriminatees are barred by Sure Tan. That this case is controlled by a single sentence from Sure Tan:
	OPINION/ORDER The Union was certified as the exclusive representative of the Company's production and maintenance employees for purposes of collective bargaining. After learning that a strike was possible. Repeated Lamphere's remarks to at least six other There is no record evidence as to whether said conversations were prior to or subsequent to the start of the strike. Sign a Union resignation form and place it in the mail. week she was out on the picket line. The picket signs never indicated that the strike was intended to be an unfair labor practice strike. There was much shouting of invectives and insults between the strikers. Shouted: that the strikers did not have jobs there anymore. That they were fired. That a particular employee was a
	OPINION/ORDER We will enforce the Board's order only in part. Is a regional renter of residential and office furniture in Virginia. The CBA was to expire on October 31. A side letter agreement was reached which increased wages and extended the CBA until December 31. FRA continued to operate from its Alexandria warehouse until late 1989 because its lease there did not expire until the summer of 1990 and its Jessup facility was being renovated. Who was hired as a new warehouse manager. Fewer of FRA's employees than ever before were Union members. A decertification petition was filed by Frederick Brown. There were also discussions between warehouse manager Wilson and other employees regarding their lack of interest in Union representation and discontent over having to pay Union dues and initiation fees. 1990 bargaining session was cancelled. Delivery service also was the cause of numerous customer complaints. FRA fired three employees who raided a customer's refrigerator while relaxing in his apartment during what was supposed to be a routine delivery.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Ryan D. With her on the brief were Leonard R. With him on the brief were Jonathan P. When the Board learned that one discriminatee was an undocumented alien. Also to avoid violations of * Senior Judge Silberman was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. A compliance hearing was held before another ALJ. Not before Castro had stated that he was a Mexican national and that the birth certificate he had used to gain employment at Hoffman was borrowed from a friend. Arguing primarily that awards of backpay to undocumented discriminatees are barred by Sure Tan. That this case is controlled by a single sentence from Sure Tan:
	OPINION/ORDER 1992 as a term of an
	OPINION/ORDER An administrative law judge (
	OPINION/ORDER Trompler is a nonunion machine shop that employs 30 workers in three shifts. The second shift runs from 2 to 10 p.m. and is staffed by eight workers. There is disagreement over what they told her. That it was that they had three complaints about the second shift supervisor: that he had failed to prevent sexual harassment of one of the six workers by another (the one who. The term
	OPINION/ORDER Were merely complaining about a safety incentive program. Was simply bringing to the attention of Bowling management what may be considered no more than a simple grievance about work rules. Whose office and place of business is in Owensboro. One such producer is AK Steel Company (
	OPINION/ORDER As follows: On page 14 the first sentence of the dissent is corrected to read:
	OPINION/ORDER Panel decision filed 2/16/01 is vacated. Our recitation of the facts is drawn in significant part from the ALJ's Decision of April 10. Which was affirmed by the Board as to
	OPINION/ORDER L.L.P were on brief. Were on brief. Which was made without affording Beverly an opportunity to submit written briefs. Beverly argues that the regulation is unlawful. We conclude that there is such substantial evidence. The union negotiator indicated that the company would have to come up from its three percent figure if the parties were to reach agreement. The parties went on to discuss an unrelated dispute (whether certain employees were part of the bargaining unit) and tempers flared. While these negotiations were taking place. Included in its new system was a new policy requiring unit employees to pay a five dollar fee for lost timecards. A hearing was held before a Board ALJ. The Board ordered the company immediately to put into effect the annual four percent wage increases that were customary prior to January 1. Standard of Review The applicable standard of review for NLRB action is provided by the National Labor Relations Act. These statutes require us to apply different standards of review depending upon what type of determination we are reviewing.
	OPINION/ORDER Work on the project commenced on September 3 and was governed by the National Maintenance Agreement (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Christopher H. On the brief were Leonard R. Because we conclude that the Board's unfair labor practice determinations are supported by sub stantial evidence and that the Board adequately explained the need for the bargaining order. The relevant facts are as follows. Telling him that he was upset that Schiavone had not told him about the union organizing effort and demanding to know who had started it. He also told Tryon that Traction was
	OPINION/ORDER During which the parties were permitted to call and cross examine witnesses. In which the NLRB rejected the Gas Company's eight objections for which no hearing was required. That the dispatchers were
	OPINION/ORDER That a subsequent strike by RGC employees was motivated in part by the retaliatory shift assignments. We conclude (1) that the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and (2) that the Board properly determined that RGC could not exercise its contractual rights in viola RGC (USA) MINERAL SANDS v. We will enforce it in full. Not all maintenance employees (mechanics) are assigned to the front shop. Some are assigned to the other two work areas. The mechanics have traditionally worked only the day shift. In the mid 1990s RGC management decided that the lack of mechanics on the evening and night shifts (the swing shifts) was costing the company too much money. RGC either had to suffer the costs of lost production or pay overtime to mechanics who were called in to repair the machinery. The proposal was presented for a vote to the entire bargaining unit. That is. Would not have to work the swing shifts. Another commented that it was done to punish the mechanics.
	OPINION/ORDER We conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the NLRB's finding that four telecommunications workers are skilled maintenance employees. We will therefore deny UPMC's petition for review and grant the NLRB's petition for enforcement of its order. I. UPMC is a private. These four employees work in the Information Services Division at UPMC's Presbyterian complex and have the job title of
	OPINION/ORDER Inc. (
	NLRB V. TRIPLE A FIRE PROTECTION, INC. (3/3/1998, NO. 96-6944) Inc. (
	NLRB V. TRIPLE A FIRE PROTECTION, INC. (3/3/1998, NO. 96-6944) Inc. (
	MCDONNELL DOUGLAS V. NLRB
	99-2011 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PUEBLO OF SAN JUAN -- 01/11/2002 Judge BRISCOE is filing a concurring opinion. Judge LUCERO is filing a concurring opinion by which he joins Parts I. These actions were challenged by the instant declaratory judgment and injunction suit brought by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) and Local Union No. 1385 of the Western Council of Industrial Workers (the Union) as an intervenor. The Board and the intervening Union brought this appeal from the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Pueblo. I The relevant facts are undisputed. San Juan Pueblo is a federally recognized Indian tribe located in New Mexico. 200 members live on tribal lands that are held in trust by the United States for the Pueblo. The Pueblo is governed by a tribal council. Which is vested with legislative authority over tribal lands. Is described in the District Court's opinion. NLRB v. The ordinance in substance is a so called
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for appellees. This is an appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs appellees T. The issue before us has not been directly addressed before by this circuit: What is the consequence of an arbitration award for damages to one union (Laborers) because of the breach of a collective bargaining agreement by the employers of members of that union in the face of an NLRB decision under 29 U.S.C.A. 160(k)(10(k)) awarding the underlying work to another union (Carpenters)? I The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiffs contractors were subcontractors to J.F. White was the main contractor for the construction of new railroad stations and the renovation of railroad bridges to facilitate the extension of commuter rail service on the Old Colony Railway. Casting concrete requires the use of wood or metal forms into which the concrete is poured. The forms are
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Leonard R. The company does not deny that it refused to bargain but contends that the union was never properly certified because three ballots were improperly excluded from the election tally. The company contends that the Board's grant of summary judgment was inappropriate. Because there is substantial evidence to support the Board's finding with regard to one of the three invalidated ballots and the company forfeited its right to challenge the Board's disposition of a second ballot. Even if the Board's finding with regard to the third ballot is unsupported by substantial evidence. Because there are no legally significant factual issues as would preclude summary judg ment. A representation election was con ducted by the Board in which ballots were to be cast by members of the bargaining unit. The initial tally of the 33 opened ballots was 19 in favor of the union. Seven unopened ballots were challenged by the union on the ground that they were cast by employees who were ineligible to vote in the representation election.
	OPINION/ORDER The distance from the BFI site to the landfill is about 140 miles. That they were driving more hours than were permitted under Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. About six weeks after the runs were reduced. Woodward claimed that he could easily organize CWI and that he mainly wanted to secure pension benefits and union health insurance for the drivers.1 1 Keiler took the stand at the hearing before the ALJ to contradict Woodward's testimony about what was said at their meeting. Claimed he was confronted by Lash in early November. Lash asked him who was
	OPINION/ORDER Argues that the NLRB lacks jurisdiction over it because the federal government maintains such pervasive control over the terms and conditions of the employment of its Head Start employees that the YWCA is prevented from engaging in meaningful collective bargaining. The purpose of the Head Start program is to provide the
	OPINION/ORDER Was constructively discharged for exercising statutory rights. Earthgrains' employees have elected to be represented by the Bakery. Which were divided into three bargaining units. None of CooperSmith's employees were represented by a union. 11 of the 13 employees at Meridian were former CooperSmith employees. 8 of 9 employees at Laurel were former CooperSmith employees. 10 of 15 employees at Hattiesburg were former CooperSmith employees. Because the Columbus market was dominated by the CooperSmith brand. In ruling that the newly acquired CooperSmith facilities should have been included in preexisting Earthgrains bargaining units. He stated that
	OPINION/ORDER Appearing at 441 F.3d 670 are hereby withdrawn. The petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are hereby DENIED. An administrative law judge (
	OPINION/ORDER Line 5 the wording is corrected to read
	PA ST EDUC ASSOC V. NLRB
	NATHAN KATZ REALTY V. NLRB Argued the cause for respondent.
	OPINION/ORDER Guardian argues that because the NLRB rejected some of the Administrative Law Judge's (
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. Several individuals who were his supervisors at Comm Tract. The district court found that Tamburello's claims are preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. We will affirm the dismissal
	OPINION/ORDER The sentence beginning
	OPINION/ORDER Because Pepsi was prevented from introducing relevant evidence at the compliance proceeding which is necessary to evaluate the amount of Pepsi's backpay liability with respect to Hyatt. This portion of the NLRB's order was enforced by this Court in 1996. A hearing on the specification was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) to resolve the issues presented. Finding that the Regional Director's
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Except insofar as it finds that salesman Jerry Parker is entitled to reinstatement. Were terminated based on anti union animus in violation of � 8(a)(3) of the Act. Were made to change tires and clean garage drains on the basis of anti union animus. Two days of additional evidentiary hearings were held before an Administrative Law Judge. Whose findings that Pepsi violated the Act in each of the areas alleged were upheld by the NLRB. Which was held on October 11. The Union was certified by the NLRB as the bargaining agent for the bargaining unit employees at the Fayetteville plant. We will examine the record regarding each of these actions in turn. 1. These facilities have latitude to determine if. That is. Employees who would be in the Union bargaining unit if the Union won the election and was certified by the NLRB. Fayetteville General Sales Manager Randall Kennedy stated that raises were delayed because Pepsi was waiting for the NLRB to resolve the ballot challenges and determine whether the Union had won the representation election.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Were terminated based on anti union animus in violation of � 8(a)(3) of the Act. Were made to change tires and clean garage drains on the basis of anti union animus. Two days of additional evidentiary hearings were held before an Administrative Law Judge. Whose findings that Pepsi violated the Act in each of the areas alleged were upheld by the NLRB. Which was held on October 11. The Union was certified by the NLRB as the bargaining agent for the bargaining unit employees at the Fayetteville plant. We will examine the record regarding each of these actions in turn. 1. These facilities have latitude to determine if. That is. Employees who would be in the Union bargaining unit if the Union won the election and was certified by the NLRB. Fayetteville General Sales Manager Randall Kennedy stated that raises were delayed because Pepsi was waiting for the NLRB to resolve the ballot challenges and determine whether the Union had won the representation election.
	OPINION/ORDER This matter is before us on the Petitioner National Labor Relations Board's (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This case requires us to decide whether nurses employed in nursing homes who have significant management responsibility in the facilities during the evening shifts and on weekends and who also have meaningful roles in the assignment and discipline of certified nursing assistants (CNAs) meet the statutory definition of supervisor under � 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act (the NLRA or the Act). Who are the senior staff members and patient care coordinators for more than two thirds of the week. Cir. 1997) (enforcing the NLRB's order determining that LPNs were not supervisors). 121 F.3d 548 (9th Cir. 1997) (2 1 decision) (holding that charge nurses were not statutory supervisors). 3 those facilities in violation of � 8(a)(1) and (a)(5) of the Act. Contends that the refusal was justified. Because the Cedar Ridge and Point Pleasant bargaining units were illegally organized. Therefore are prohibited from unionizing. The nurses at issue at the Cedar Ridge and Point Pleasant facilities are somewhat differently situated.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Arthur F. Stapp was on the brief for intervenor. Is a non union electrical contractor in the construction business. Progressive advertised in the local paper that it was
	OPINION/ORDER The arbitration forum designated in the collective bargaining agreement is an inappropriate vehicle by which to settle the parties' dispute. We will affirm the District Court's order which enjoins the Union and the American Arbitration Association from including AmeriSteel as a party in pending arbitration proceedings. Yet the arbitrator is powerless to enforce these obligations because they are not binding on the successor employer. Facts and Procedural Background Appellee AmeriSteel is a Florida corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of steel products. The purchase agreement between 3 AmeriSteel and Brocker Rebar included various provisions expressly stating that AmeriSteel was not to be bound by the terms of the CBA. AmeriSteel has consistently and repeatedly maintained that it is not bound by the terms of the CBA. Therefore that it is not bound to arbitrate under the agreement. All but six members of Local 430 who had worked for Brocker Rebar were hired by AmeriSteel. AmeriSteel was obligated to bargain with the Union.
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs were Leonard R. The Director also found that the superintendents in Katz's buildings were not supervi sors under the National Labor Relations Act (
	FERRISO LAWRENCE R. V. NLRB
	INTL LNGSHRMN ASSN V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER The Administrative Law Judge (
	OPINION/ORDER P.C. were on brief for appellant. Cowley and Edwards & Angell were on brief for appellees. This acquisition was completed through the merger of the prior owner. ECN 2 is consolidating the three newspapers into one publication to be called The Salem Evening News. This consolidated daily is to be published from ECN's Beverly facility. Which is less than five miles from the less modern Salem plant. The district court noted that this consolidation was the principal reason for ECN's acquisition and that it required a reduction in the work force in order to avoid duplication. The Agreement was to expire on September 30. It was extended until March 31. The Guild contends that the Agreement was extended because of the then pending acquisition and due. The Publisher communicated to the Guild
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief were Ronald E. Andrews was on the brief for intervenors A.J. Inc. was a Florida company that specialized in refurbishing gas turbines. Greene and James Sanders founded the company and were its sole stockholders and directors. Many of which were clear violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The facts set forth in Part I of this opinion are taken from the Board's initial and supplemental decisions. None of these facts were disputed in the Board's supplemental decision and order. Which is on review here. 1 4 In the midst of their battle against the union. The union prevailed in a representation election and was certified as the representative of a unit of A.J. That Greene and Sanders were personally involved in many of them. Their wives (who shared equally in the distributions) were personally liable for the company's obligations. In which he determined that the total amount of backpay owed was $462. 755 and that Greene and his wife were personally liable for repayment.
	OIL CHEM & ATOMIC V. NLRB
	CAPITOL STEEL V. NLRB The National Labor Relations Board was incorrectly identified. We are asked to resolve the following question: If a collective bargaining agreement contains a provision permitting an employer to grant wage increases to any of its employees in any amount. Is the employer shielded from unfair labor practice charges based on the grant of such increases. The present dispute arose while the Agreement was in effect. Nesom then promised to pass on profits to the employees when it was possible to do so. Nesom later testified that these raises were given to reward employee performance. All of the recipients would find out as of their next paychecks (which were to be distributed on September 9). The raises were given out based on the criteria of attitude. A union official told him the name of the restaurant where the meeting was to take place. As employees were leaving the plant to go to the Union meeting. Because the papers were passed from hand to hand en route to their recipients. Called each of the employees with the following message: We have been advised by the Union that Union members have voted to strike instead of accepting the Company's contract offer.
	OPINION/ORDER At the time that this first CBA was negotiated. Aircraft was a division of Loral and as a consequence. Employees of both entities were covered by the In its January 1996 Order. The NLRB determined not only that Loral and Aircraft had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) as a result of their unilateral changes in health care plans but also found that Aircraft was guilty of separate violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) arising out of its failure/refusal to arbitrate certain grievances. The failure to arbitrate portion of the NLRB's Order is not challenged by Aircraft. That portion of the Order will be summarily enforced. Cir. 1997) (Board's findings that are not challenged on appeal are entitled to summary enforcement). 1 4 Loral Defense Systems. Aircraft was severed from Loral and became an independent corporate entity. The 1988 collective bargaining agreement covering Loral and Aircraft employees was to expire by its own terms on August 10. The Board issued an order determining that the single collective bargaining unit was no longer appropriate in light of the new organizational structure of the companies and.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Our Virgin Islands Labor Union (
	OPINION/ORDER I. Norton Audubon Hospital is a not for profit hospital located in Louisville. The NLRB conducted an election among the Norton Audubon employees that year in which the Union was unsuccessful. Norton Audubon was purchased by Columbia Healthcare Corporation in 1993. Another election was held in 1994. The Union was again unsuccessful. Was in the process of purchasing Norton Audubon and urged Alliant to recognize and bargain with the Union in a letter sent to the CEO of Alliant and signed by Gentry. Gentry was generally viewed as a very well qualified nurse.2 Gentry joined the Union in the 1980s and served as a trustee and legislative director. Gentry was a self described
	OPINION/ORDER Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER The relevant facts are not disputed. Tower had 91 employees who were eligible for union representation. A repSuch an order is named for NLRB v. NLRB 3773 resentation election was held. Only 37 of the 79 votes cast were cast in favor of representation by the Union. Reinstate and provide restitution to the two employees who were fired for their support of the union organizing drive. Enumerates the union related rights of employees: Employees shall have the right to self organization. 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 employment as authorized in section 1588(a)(3) of this title. 3 3774 UNITED STEELWORKERS v. The panel also affirmed all but one of the ALJ's recommended remedies: It disagreed that a Gissel order was warranted. That a Gissel bargaining order is not necessary. We find that the Board's traditional cease and desist and other affirmative remedies including posting of a notice will sufficiently address [Tower's] misconduct to ensure that a fair rerun election can be held.
	01-9516 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. OKLAHOMA FIXTURE CO. -- 06/18/2003 A panel of this court held that the statutory phrase
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Scott M. With her on the brief were Linda R. With him on the brief were Carl B. The primary question in this case is whether the Board properly concluded that the existence of the original unfair labor practices causally contributed to the parties' inability to reach a new collective bargaining agreement. We must consider whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion that the workers were engaged in an unfair labor practice strike. Which is a prerequisite to judicial review under section 10(e) of the Act. We hold that the Board's findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence on the record. I. Background Alwin is a closely held corporation located in Green Bay. Alwin and the union were parties to a series of collective bargaining agreements. The court of appeals found that Alwin's argu ments against enforcement were frivolous and enforced the order. The CBA was scheduled to expire on February 28. There were fourteen sessions held.
	PIONEER HOTEL INC V. NLRB Kirshman argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Gary G. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. (4) denying em ployee James Guirey access to the employee dining room where he was circulating a petition. Section 8(a)(3) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate
	97-9535 -- ARAMARK CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 05/28/1999 Argued that the Board was without jurisdiction in these matters because: (1) . The operations at issue are exempt from Board jurisdiction under the
	LEE LUMBER AND BUILDING MATERIAL CORP., V. NLRB Frank argued the cause for petitioner.
	96-9548 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. I.W.G., INC. -- 05/18/1998 160(f). Respondent claims that there is a procedural impediment to the Board's conclusion that Arlene was an alter ego of I.W.G. and Con Bru.
	OPINION/ORDER (Amptech) was found to have violated the National Labor Relations Act. Arguing that they were not supported by substantial evidence. The NLRB argues that the decision was supported by substantial evidence in its entirety. Of this number 41 were employed through Manpower. 1 and the rest were regular employees. Amptech is owned by two brothers. Who is the President of Amptech. Who is the Vice President and Human Resources Director. The physical plant is owned by a separate corporation. Which is owned by the two brothers together with the Patulski's mother. One of the handbills that was distributed called for an employee organizational meeting on September 23. Stacey Patulski conducted a meeting with employees were he decried the organizing effort. Employees White and Vallad were known by management to associate with Union organizers or supporters. There were also several smaller mandatory meetings to which known Union supporters were not invited. Testimony in the record indicated that Manpower was used as a means of hiring new employees at Amptech in that employees were brought in as contract workers through Manpower for a trial period.
	CHAMBER CMERC US V. REICH ROBERT B.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: There are two questions before the court: (1) whether there is substantial evidence to support a finding by the National Labor Relations Board (Board) that The Earthgrains Company (Earthgrains) unlawfully withheld a wage increase from employees scheduled to vote in a Board conducted union representation election in violation of sections 8(a)(1) & (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). (2) whether there is substantial evidence to support the Board's findings of other unfair labor practices by Earthgrains in violation of section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. We hold that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings on both issues. Was created by the merger of its parent company. We will refer to the petitioner as
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Steven M. With him on the brief were Arthur F. The company and the union entered into a collective bargaining agreement that was effective from May 26. Because it was tainted by the company's unlawful refusal to bargain in April and by its unlawful assistance to the employees' decertification efforts. There is a presumption that the employees' disaffec tion from the union is the result of the employer's unlawful conduct. Was both
	OPINION/ORDER Kenniff was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Of a Board order holding that Capital is a successor employer within the meaning of NLRB v. Capital argues that (1) the Board's finding that Capital was a successor because it acted with anti union animus in refusing to hire union workers is not supported by substantial evi dence. (2) under Burns it was entitled to establish the terms and conditions of employment it would offer initially to the employees of its predecessor. (3) the Board's remedial order is punitive. For the reasons stated below we reject Capital's first two arguments but agree that the Board's order is punitive. AFL CIO was the exclusive bargaining representative of the Ogden cleaning employees. That he was not pleased with the quality of the work Ogden had done. As was its general practice. Because Kaplan was con cerned that KCR would not be able fully to staff the Bulova building. Kaplan testified that because hiring the Ogden em ployees
	OPINION/ORDER ORDER It is ORDERED by the court that the opinion filed in this case on June 27. Deny the Board's cross application for enforcement and vacate the order of the Board.'' Per Curiam For the Court: Mark Langer Clerk Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. Robert Lombardi was on brief for the petitioner. Were on brief for the respondent. We conclude that the Board's decision is not based on substantial evidence and. Approximately six weeks after it recognized the Union (on March BPH & Co. is the successor to HEPC Palmas. Inc. which was the employer at all relevant times in this proceeding. Which provides that the charged party will take certain action to remedy ULPs and requires the Regional Director's approval but not a Board order or court decree. The matter was submitted to the Board on briefs and stipulated facts.
	COOPER/T. SMITH, INC. V. NLRB (6/14/1999, NO. 97-7024) That the NLRB should not have certified the union because the docking pilots are
	COOPER/T. SMITH, INC. V. NLRB (6/14/1999, NO. 97-7024) That the NLRB should not have certified the union because the docking pilots are
	LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577) The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. � 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action. The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed. Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case.
	LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577) The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. � 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action. The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed. Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case.
	OPINION/ORDER Including that the affiliation was improper. That its actions were lawful under the Act. That some of the unfair labor practices charges were time barred. Employees at both plants were represented by the United Molders Union until 1986. Replied that it was not the Company's policy to provide this information and that the Shop Committee officers would have to obtain this information on their own. Some notices were also handed out at Plant 2. Although the extent of this hand billing is unclear from the record. Company president Galinsky approached Clingenpeel at work and told him that if arbitration was the employees' main concern underlying their desire to affiliate with the IAM. Neither the constitution nor bylaws were provided for the employees to review at the meeting. Was read to the employees. Although the only votes cast were by the 24 employees already in attendance. The vote was 22 to 2 in favor of affiliation. Have minimal contact with the Company's employees and. Which was amended on January 31.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: At issue in this case is whether it was reasonable for the National Labor Relations Board (
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Judith Scott was on brief. The Board is entitled to summary enforcement. AFL CIO (Union) were ne gotiating new collective bargaining agreements for employees at the 20 Pennsylvania nursing homes in this case. Bargaining units at all but three of the facilities were covered by agreements set to expire on November 30. Units at two other homes were covered by agreements set to expire on December 31. 1994 and the remaining unit was newly certified and not yet covered by an agreement. All of which were ultimately consoli dated into one complaint.
	BEVERLY HEALTH & REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC V. NLRB Were on brief. �� Craig Becker argued the cause for the intervenor.� Judith Scott was on brief. �� Before:� Sentelle. The Board is entitled to summary enforcement.� International Union of Petroleum &. AFL CIO (Union) were ne gotiating new collective bargaining agreements for employees at the 20 Pennsylvania nursing homes in this case.� At the time. Bargaining units at all but three of the facilities were covered by agreements set to expire on November 30. Units at two other homes were covered by agreements set to expire on December 31. 1994 and the remaining unit was newly certified and not yet covered by an agreement.� Nego tiations continued until Spring 1996. �� Beginning on February 13. All of which were ultimately consoli dated into one complaint.� On November 26.
	OPINION/ORDER Facts Allegheny Ludlum is a manufacturer of specialty steel products in Western Pennsylvania. The Union filed an election petition with the NLRB and an election was scheduled for 3 December 2. Those who agreed were instructed to sit at their desks. Although some employees filmed that day were given advance written notice explaining that the video would be used in the company's election campaign and that they could decline to participate. Others were given no notice until after they were filmed. Goralka complied and he and the listed co workers were deleted from the video. Ziemianski prepared two written notices that were distributed to employees in advance. One notice stated: Please be advised that a film crew will be in and around your work areas filming footage for an 4 upcoming video presentation that the company will use to present the facts about the current election campaign involving the Steelworkers. We will be happy to accommodate your request. Joyce Kurcina is Allegheny Ludlum's Director of Employee Relations and Steve Spolar is Allegheny Ludlum's Human Relations Counsel.
	NLRB V. MCCLAIN OF GEORGIA, INC. (4/17/1998, NO. 97-8444) Including some temporary employees who are eligible to become permanent workers after a 90 day probationary period. The events giving rise to the Board's finding that the Company engaged in unfair labor practices took place in late 1994 and early 1995. The Board dismissed the union's petition on the ground that the bargaining unit would have to include the Company's temporary employees. The Board's order requires the Company to cease and desist from engaging in these unfair labor practices and directs the Company to offer full reinstatement with back pay to those employees who were discharged pursuant to the change in the Company's drug testing policy and to those employees who were laid off.
	OPINION/ORDER Advocate South Suburban Hospital was charged with unlawfully threatening one of its nurses for her participation in the Service Employees International Union's campaign to organize Advocate 2 Nos. 06 1346 & 06 1511 employees. The National Labor Relations Board concluded that one of Advocate's managers coercively interrogated and threatened the nurse and implied that the union was under surveillance. Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was campaigning to unionize some of them. One employee receptive to SEIU's campaign was Susan Hall. Hall claims that when Advocate discovered her attendance at SEIU meetings and she appeared in SEIU literature she was threatened by her supervisor Beverly Mulvihill. (The precise date is unknown. Hall could Nos. 06 1346 & 06 1511 3 roughly describe when events occurred in relation to each other but was mostly unable to give precise dates.). Early August 2004
	NLRB V. MCCLAIN OF GEORGIA, INC. (4/17/1998, NO. 97-8444) Including some temporary employees who are eligible to become permanent workers after a 90 day probationary period. The events giving rise to the Board's finding that the Company engaged in unfair labor practices took place in late 1994 and early 1995. The Board dismissed the union's petition on the ground that the bargaining unit would have to include the Company's temporary employees. The Board's order requires the Company to cease and desist from engaging in these unfair labor practices and directs the Company to offer full reinstatement with back pay to those employees who were discharged pursuant to the change in the Company's drug testing policy and to those employees who were laid off.
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs have frequently sought damages from affiliated corporations. Plaintiffs with claims arising from non WARN Act sources of law against debt laden or bankrupt corporations have occasionally attempted to sue the corporations' major secured lenders. On the theory that the lenders have exercised such control over the corporations that veil piercing is appr opriate. The question before us is whether the for mer employees of Component Technology (CompTech). Have set forth sufficient evidence to cr eate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether . Requires us to consider not only the prerequisites for parent/subsidiary liability in the WARN Act context (as will be shown. That 2 jurisprudence is apposite here). Courts have been extr emely reluctant to hold lenders liable for their borrowers' actions. Some version of the
	OPINION/ORDER Line 6 the phrase
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Gary G. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. (4) denying em ployee James Guirey access to the employee dining room where he was circulating a petition. Our role in reviewing the NLRB's decision is limited. We conclude that the Board's findings are not supported by 'substantial evidence. We are also required to give
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Mark L. With her on the brief were Arthur F. With him on the brief were Lynn K. Inc. is the parent company of ITT Automotive. Three of which are located in East Tawas. These are known collectively as the
	WA SVC CONTRS COALTN V. DC
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. The employees that is. The case involves review of the Board's determination that the pro union activities of a supervisor were not sufficient to deprive employees of their right to a free and uncoerced choice. That equipment is delivered by field service technicians. With Nagle and four other North Atlantic employees who were interested in unionization.
	OPINION/ORDER The district court held that this practice is illegal. We will reverse. I. The facts are stated comprehensively in the district court's opinion. Its Local 786 and Caterpillar have been parties to a collective bargaining agreement since 1954. The agreement contained a
	OPINION/ORDER
	97-9535 -- ARAMARK CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 09/22/1998 The Unions have intervened to support the Board's application for enforcement. Aramark argues the Board is without jurisdiction to order Aramark to engage in collective bargaining because Aramark's operations fall within the political subdivision exemption of the Act. Aramark also argues the Board is without jurisdiction because under its government contracts. This court rejects Aramark's claim the Board erred in concluding it was not an exempt political subdivision. BACKGROUND Aramark is a Delaware corporation providing food services nationwide. These employees accordingly retained civil service status and the employees were in a public sector collective bargaining unit represented by Council 79. 1990 were Aramark employees and were not represented in the public sector collective bargaining unit. The original contract was renewed yearly until June 30. Aramark was awarded a one year contract. This contract was renewable for additional one year periods. In December 1996.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: At issue in this case is the arbitrability of alleged violations of an agreement between Plaintiffs Appellants Service Employees International Union (
	OPINION/ORDER The district court concluded that Gurley's claim was precluded by res judicata because of a previous National Labor Relations Board (
	OPINION/ORDER The Company is nonunion and explains its approach to
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Richard S. With him on the brief were Ronald E. With him on the brief were Richard G. LLC (
	OPINION/ORDER A. Media General is a Virginia newspaper publisher that operates a production facility in Mechanicsville. In relevant part: WE ARE VOTING YES! We have made a commitment and promise to ourselves. WE WILL NOT fall for the company's scare tactics! WE WILL NOT CHANGE OUR MINDS! WE WILL STAND BY OUR WORD! WE WILL VOTE YES!
	OPINION/ORDER Those practices are not the subject of Vanguard's appeal.1 Vanguard appeals the Board's final Order. Claiming there was not substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's decision that Vanguard violated the Act. The Union was certified as the representative of employees who were
	OPINION/ORDER Was in violation of sections 8(a)(1). There are two corporations involved in this litigation. The employees of these two corporations are represented by the Glass. He was represented by the Union and served as its union steward and as a bargaining committeeman. He was also responsible for the filing and the processing of grievances. The matter was subsequently settled between the parties without any official action by the NLRB. It was Mann's view that this recall provision should be interpreted so as to give priority to those employees who had been laid off in May 2002 over their fellow workers who had been transferred to the OPW ES. That it was imperative that the International Union be given a reasonable amount of time in which to evaluate this issue. He was surprised to see the signatures of Grace and Miller on the grievance form because it was
	OPINION/ORDER Rivera was on brief. Were on brief. Procedural Background
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: We are called upon to resolve a dispute between Recon Refractory & Construction Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER ACS has worked with two unions that are relevant to this appeal. The principal union that performs work for ACS is the Mason Contractors Association of Greater Chicago and Illinois District Council No. 1 of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Samuel C. With him on the briefs was Joshua L. With her on the brief were Leonard R. With him on the brief were Samuel C. That the strikers were unfair labor practice strikers. While the unions object to the Board's determination that one employer's unilateral implementation of a change in work assignment rules was lawful. The employers' petition for review is granted. The unions' is denied. Each paper is responsi ble for its news and editorial operations. Are handled by DNA. The employees of these three companies are represented by 12 unions each repre senting a separate bargaining unit of the papers or DNA. Petitioners are six of these unions which compose the Metro politan Council of Newspaper Unions (the Council). Two of the unions in the Council are particularly important to this case: the Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 (DTU). Representing editorial employees at the News.1 Each newspaper and DNA is responsible for its own labor negotiations. Noneconomic issues were negotiated between DNA and each individual union.
	DAILY NEWS LOS V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The
	TASTY BAKING CO V. NLRB Argued the cause for respondent.
	PLMBS PIPE FITRS #32 V. NLRB
	LARO MAINT CORP V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Leonard R. TBC alleges that part of the complaint filed by the NLRB's General Counsel was time barred. That the hearing conducted by the Board's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was procedurally flawed. That the Board's factual conclusions are unsupported. That the Board's prescribed remedy is improper. Ensures that the baked product is carried away on a conveyor belt. her position was safe and that she was the company's
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Eugene Scalia. With him on the brief were Leonard R. The award was relevant to the Union's assessment of how best to protect the interests of their affected bargaining unit members. Crowley argues that the Board's order is unjustified. Because the arbitration award is irrelevant to the Union's legitimate interests under the NLRA. There is no doubt that. The Board was fully justified in finding merit in the Union's request for the information in connection with a possible grievance claim. Substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that the Union communicated to Crowley that the arbitration award was reasonably relevant to pending and possible future grievance claims. The information was sought and needed
	OPINION/ORDER Promedica Before a hearing was held on the Summer 2000 charges. Many of the election charges were withdrawn or settled. Promised employees that they would receive wage raises but later told them that the raises were being rescinded because the Union filed a representation petition. ProMedica crosspetitioned for review. 3 Matters related to the election objections are not part of this appeal. 3 Nos. 05 1660. The scope of our review of is limited.
	OPINION/ORDER District Judge: This case is before the court on the application of the National Labor Relations Board (
	OPINION/ORDER A representation election was held among the warehouse and retail store employees. Robert Orr/Sysco voted against union representation in an election that was conducted by the National Labor Relations Board (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was John N. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. With him on the brief was Travis J. I. Warshawsky (the Company) sells automobile parts and accessories and is currently constructing a warehouse and mail order facility in LaSalle. The union stopped later that day after being told that Automotion was not yet working at the site. That any subsequent picketing of Automotion should be con ducted only when Automotion was working on the site: Mon day through Friday from 4 p.m. to 6 a.m. Various union agents stationed themselves in close proximity to the LaSalle site on a road that was used primarily by persons going to and from the site. The site itself was not open to members of the general public. IS DESTROYING THE STANDARD OF WAGES FOR HARD WORKING UNION MEMBERS AUTOMOTION. Iron Workers Local 386 is currently engaged in a labor dispute concerning the failure of Automotion. We are appealing only to the general public. We are not seeking any person to cease work or to stop making deliveries.
	WARSHAWSKY & CO V. NLRB With him on the briefs was John N. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. McGann argued the cause for intervenor. With him on the brief was Travis J. We grant the petition. I. Warshawsky (the Company) sells automobile parts and accessories and is currently constructing a warehouse and mail order facility in LaSalle. The union stopped later that day after being told that Automotion was not yet working at the site. that any subsequent picketing of Automotion should be con ducted only when Automotion was working on the site: Mon day through Friday from 4 p.m. to 6 a.m. Various union agents stationed themselves in close proximity to the LaSalle site on a road that was used primarily by persons going to and from the site. The site itself was not open to members of the general public. INC. IS DESTROYING THE STANDARD OF WAGES FOR HARD WORKING UNION MEMBERS AUTOMOTION. INC. PAYS SUBSTANDARD WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS. IGNORING THE AREA STANDARDS THREATENS THE EFFORTS AND SACRIFICES OF ALL UNION MEMBERS. Iron Workers Local 386 is currently engaged in a labor dispute concerning the failure of Automotion.
	OPINION/ORDER MOUNTAINEER STEEL Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because we conclude that the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is correct as a matter of law. Which is known as miners' vacation. Layoffs are made by the company's president. When the 1995 Agreement was signed. The Agreement was only enforced for a short period of time. Kerns asked the employees at the work site if they
	OPINION/ORDER At the time she was fired. The Reverend Jesse Jackson came to the plant to make a lunchtime speech in support of the union.2 A The rally was held by the Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers' Union. The tape is in the record before us. Was the basis for much of the detail in the ALJ's findings. Local police arrived on the scene and informed the union organizers that they were trespassing on company property and asked them to leave. Jackson then learned that the two union men were under arrest and went to visit them at the police car. Above the door was a sign saying. Smith told Jackson he was trespassing and asked Jackson to leave the plant and return by the visitor's entrance in the front of the plant. As this conversation was taking place. Felsenthal offered to let Wallace have a fellow worker with her in the interview. After Wallace said there was no point in questioning her. Felsenthal said:
	OPINION/ORDER As follows: On page 6 the first sentence of the dissent is corrected to read:
	01-9518 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. OKLAHOMA FIXTURE CO. -- 09/10/2003 160(e) and deny enforcement. OFC contends the NLRB erred in concluding it was bound by a terminated master collective bargaining agreement it never signed. If OFC was not contractually bound by a collective bargaining agreement with the Union. NLRB's finding of unfair labor practices cannot stand. BACKGROUND The facts are undisputed. OFC is an Oklahoma corporation that manufactures and installs fixtures and custom woodwork in retail stores throughout the United States. No appeal was taken from NLRB's finding that OIC was the alter ego of OFC. OIC is bound to OFC's
	OPINION/ORDER Who have been or are now employed at IBP's meat processing plant in Joslin. They appeal from the district court's decision that their claim should have been submitted to the National Labor Relations Board rather than a court. The court shall determine by order whether it is to be so maintained
	SEATTLE OPERA V. NLRB Lemly was on brief.
	01-9516 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. OKLAHOMA FIXTURE COMPANY -- 07/09/2002 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
	OPINION/ORDER Hall were on brief. Deputy Associate General Counsel at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. Despite Saipan's assertion that four of its employees were supervisors engaged in pro union. The Board concluded that the employees were not supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act) s 2(11). The Representation Proceeding Saipan is a beachfront resort hotel operating on the island of Saipan in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).1 On August 2. Three ballots were challenged. Nonresident workers were ineligible to vote in the elec tion and could not be included in a bargaining unit with resident employees. Holding that the jurisdictional issues were raised by Saipan in its election objections and that the denial of its request for review was without prejudice to the right to pursue its argument in the representation litigation. 2 At the time approximately 70 per cent of the hotel's non management work force consisted of Filipino nonresidents who worked in the CNMI pursuant to one year contracts.
	OPINION/ORDER Craven were on the briefs. Were on the brief. With whom Laurence Gold was on the brief. Sprint argues that this decision was based on the program's substan tial financial losses and a continuing decline in its customer base. Found that Sprint acted because program employees were about to unionize. It ordered Sprint to reinstate each terminated employee as a substantially equivalent position becomes available and to pay each employee the difference between what the employee would have earned if never terminated and what the employee actually earned during the period before Sprint offered the employee reinstatement. This case is before the court on Sprint's petition to review the NLRB's order and on the NLRB's cross application for en forcement of its order. Its strategy was to develop customer loyalty based on common culture and language. Sprint discovered that the majority of its telemarketers were undocumented aliens and sued La Conexion's sellers to rescind the purchase agreement. Sprint set out in early February 1994 to deter mine LCF's true financial condition and soon discovered that LCF was in serious financial difficulty.
	OPINION/ORDER The Board did not have jurisdiction over the unfair labor practices charge. We will vacate the Board's decision. Much of Asplundh's work is performed for utility companies that need to keep their power lines cleared of tree limbs. One of Asplundh's operations is based in Cincinnati. Asplundh's employees are represented by Local 171 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. Kelley was terminated from her sales representative position. The date by which a response to the settlement offer was due. Kelley's attorney discussed the procedures for filing unfair labor practice charges with the Board information officer for Region 1 and specifically asked whether her client was responsible for serving DBS with a copy of the charge filed against it. Was served on DBS July 8. Which was accompanied by notice of a November 7. The complaint allegations and raising the affirmative defense that Kelley's action was time barred. Was served one day after the six month limitations period established by statute. The Board found that there are
	NLRB V. W. DIXIE ENTERPRISES (7/20/1999, NO. 98-5192) West Dixie was a Florida corporation doing business as an electrical contractor. Carole Ann Paolicelli was the company's owner. West Dixie funds were used to pay the rent on Mr. Created the impression that union activities were under surveillance. 000. West Dixie was administratively dissolved on August 26. The Paolicellis continued to operate the business as usual under the name West Dixie until it was reinstated as a corporation on October 25. The complaint was later amended to add the Paolicellis as alter egos of the corporation. (3) the Paolicellis were alter egos of West Dixie and were therefore also liable for the violations. Raising only the jurisdictional and alter ego issues. We review the NLRB's factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Because 1994 was also the year the NLRA violations allegedly took place. Instead contend that calendar year 1994 was not an appropriate period upon which to establish jurisdiction. The respondents argue that under Jerry Durham Drywall.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Were on brief. Was on brief. BACKGROUND
	NLRB V. W. DIXIE ENTERPRISES (7/20/1999, NO. 98-5192) West Dixie was a Florida corporation doing business as an electrical contractor. Carole Ann Paolicelli was the company's owner. West Dixie funds were used to pay the rent on Mr. Created the impression that union activities were under surveillance. 000. West Dixie was administratively dissolved on August 26. The Paolicellis continued to operate the business as usual under the name West Dixie until it was reinstated as a corporation on October 25. The complaint was later amended to add the Paolicellis as alter egos of the corporation. (3) the Paolicellis were alter egos of West Dixie and were therefore also liable for the violations. Raising only the jurisdictional and alter ego issues. We review the NLRB's factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Because 1994 was also the year the NLRA violations allegedly took place. Instead contend that calendar year 1994 was not an appropriate period upon which to establish jurisdiction. The respondents argue that under Jerry Durham Drywall.
	UNIVERSITY OF GREAT FALLS V. NLRB In support of petitioner.
	OPINION/ORDER The Board found that Greer and Associates is the alter ego of Crossroads and that both entities unlawfully refused to give effect to the collective bargaining agreement that existed between Crossroads and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Greer and Associates argues that enforcement is unwarranted because either the Union failed to file its charge against Crossroads and Greer and 1 Associates within the applicable statute of limitations or. Assuming the charge was timely. Substantial evidence did not support the Board's determination that Greer and Associates is an alter ego of Crossroads. Which was formed in 1997. Is an electrical contracting company. Crossroads was initially owned and operated by three individuals: Micheal Thomas (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Ned A. With him on the brief were Leonard R. Rosenfeld was on the brief for intervenor Interna tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Country Ford challenges primarily the Board's deter mination that a collective bargaining unit consisting of service technicians and lube workers at one of its facilities was appropriate under section 9 of the NLRA. Because there are no grounds upon which petitioner could rightfully refuse to provide the union with the requested information. Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER This is an unfortunate case in which a little good will from both parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) would have saved everyone considerable time and expense. We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. � 160(e) and (f). Was too quick to halt the dialogue. Some 180 of them are members of a bargaining unit represented by the Union. An employee who is late or absent for medical reasons but does not provide a doctor slip will receive
	REGAL CINEMAS, INC., V. NLRB Jr. was on brief. �� Fred B. Were on brief.� David S. � and (4) ordering Regal to reinstate the terminated projectionists.� We find that Regal's contentions are without merit and therefore deny its petition for review and grant the NLRB's cross application for enforcement. �� I. Dedicated Projectionists and the Trend �� Toward Manager Operated Theaters �� Regal is a Tennessee corporation that operates movie theaters throughout the United States.� Since its founding in 1989. Of older movies that are no longer being shown. Technological advances have greatly sim plified the projection process and have thus eliminated many of the job duties originally performed by projectionists.� As a result of the so called platter system.
	MEDITE OF N.M. V. NLRB When Medite and the Union were unable to reach a collective bargaining agreement. Among the strikers were employees Feliverto Casias. A picket line was established along the sides of the road leading to the main entrance to Medite's plant. A number of incidents occurred in connection with the picket line and the strike which are detailed. The Union was decertified and the strike ended. After you went on
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Overnite Transportation Company is a trucking company that operates approximately 176 terminals in North America. Elections were held. The Board's Regional Director held that the separate units sought by Local 651 were appropriate. Imposes a statutory constraint on the Board's discretion: In determining whether a unit is appropriate for the purposes specified in subsection (b) of this section the extent to which the employees have organized shall not be controlling. Overnite relies on the Board's decision to include mechanics in a single bargaining unit at its Memphis terminal when the Teamsters requested a mechanics included unit there.3 Claiming that the Memphis terminal is
	OPINION/ORDER Alito heard oral argument in this case but was elevated to the United States Supreme Court on January 31. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. � 46(d). Engelhard's Peekskill employees were covered by a collective bargaining agreement (the
	OPINION/ORDER Inc. was a successor to WXGI. When the business was finally transferred from WXGI. Were prime time on air radio personalities for WXGI. The fourth was sales account executive. It appears that
	OPINION/ORDER Jr. was on brief. Were on brief. We find that Regal's contentions are without merit and therefore deny its petition for review and grant the NLRB's cross application for enforcement. Dedicated Projectionists and the Trend Toward Manager Operated Theaters Regal is a Tennessee corporation that operates movie theaters throughout the United States. Performing the
	OPINION/ORDER Gonzalez & Rodriguez were on brief. With whom L pez Lay Vizcarra & Porro was on brief. Were on brief. The judicial system is not immune. Agents of the Board conducted a representation proceeding at which evidence was taken. The record was closed in April 1995. That his position technical supervisor (TS) was to be eliminated effective June 16. It is common ground that employers cannot obtain direct review of unfavorable certification decisions. If an employer is dissatisfied with the outcome of a representation proceeding. The option of choice is to refuse to bargain and to raise any infirmity in the certification decision as a defense to the unfair labor practice charge that almost inevitably will ensue. The Company defended on the ground that the bargaining unit was inappropriate because the TDs were supervisors. ASSEMBLING THE CAST The employees in the bargaining unit are members of the Company's production services department. The crew's activities are dictated for the most part by the script for the upcoming program.
	OPINION/ORDER Lemly was on brief. Were on brief. The Board held that the Opera's refusal to bargain with the American Guild of Musical Artists (Union) after the Union was certified as the collective bargaining representa tive of an allegedly appropriate unit of the Opera's employ ees constituted an unfair labor practice (ULP) under section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act). It contests the Board's conclusion that the Opera's auxiliary choristers are
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Argued the cause for petitioner.
	OPINION/ORDER This decision was originally issued as an
	OPINION/ORDER With whom Gleeson & Corcoran was on brief for petitioner Sullivan Brothers Printers. National Labor Relations Board were on brief for the National Labor Relations Board. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND We have previously addressed this dispute in some detail. Local 109C was left with about 40 members. Roughly 15 of whom were from Sullivan. Local 139B's contract with Sullivan was due to expire in August of 1993. Local 109C's was effective through May of 1995. In that case we were reviewing an interlocutory appeal for a temporary injunction pursuant to section 10(j) of the Act. Such a proceeding is independent of the proceeding on the merits. Therefore our decision in Sullivan I is not binding in the context of this appeal. Its argument is that the administrative transfer of Locals 139B and 109C interrupted the collective bargaining relationship. The Board asks: (1) whether the merger or transfer vote occurred under 'circumstances satisfying 6 minimum due process' and (2) whether there was 'substantial continuity' between the pre and post merger union.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Included among the employee rights enumerated in section 7 is the right
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Linda Sher. I. When Reno Hilton began operating what was formerly a Bally's hotel restaurant casino complex in 1992. The members of which were not repre sented by any labor organization. While those charges were pending. An election was scheduled for September 1995. Was called into the office of Reno Hilton's director of security. The Burk Group official asked Parillo to help determine which security employees were pro or anti union. The Union won the election by a vote of 44 to 33 and was certified by the Board on October 12. Bennett's impression after that meeting was that Reno Hilton
	OPINION/ORDER It argues that it was not obligated to do so because the affiliation of the independent union at CPS's Old Bridge. Are outside the purview of representation issues under the Act. To the extent that a portion of our analysis in the earlier cases is still valid. We find that the Board's factual findings and its application of these affiliation principles have substantial support in the record. That its conclusions are based on a reasonable interpretation of the Act and the case law in this area. We will deny CPS's petition for review and will enforce the Board's order.1 1. Virtually all of the records it requested were provided before or at the hearing.
	LEACH CORP V. NLRB
	RENO HILTON RESORTS V. NLRB With him on the brief were Linda Sher. We deny the petition for review and grant the Board's cross application for enforcement of the order. I. When Reno Hilton began operating what was formerly a Bally's hotel restaurant casino complex in 1992. The members of which were not repre sented by any labor organization. While those charges were pending. An election was scheduled for September 1995. Was called into the office of Reno Hilton's director of security. The Burk Group official asked Parillo to help determine which security employees were pro or anti union. The hotel would contract out the security jobs and showing Parillo figures purporting to represent the associated cost savings. The Union won the election by a vote of 44 to 33 and was certified by the Board on October 12. Bennett's impression after that meeting was that Reno Hilton ". May have lost the battle. The unit security employees] were gone.".
	PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC. V. NLRB Marquess argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Darin L. Yager were on the brief of amici curiae LPA. With her on the brief were Leonard R. Because we agree with the Board that the unions' activities were protected by the Na tional Labor Relations Act. Because the Board's finding that petitioner's lawsuit was both unmeritorious and retaliato ry is supported by substantial evidence. We have seen irresponsible companies build pro . jects which have caused more pollution than should be per mitted. We are now threatened with construction moratori ums in many counties in California.". Advocat ing regulatory action which will force construction companies to pay their employees a living wage. The unions are arguing [to local governments] that the economic rewards of development are lost when local people aren't hired at the prevailing wage. Were delaying and ".
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Darin L. Yager were on the brief of amici curiae LPA. With her on the brief were Leonard R. Because we agree with the Board that the unions' activities were protected by the Na tional Labor Relations Act. Because the Board's finding that petitioner's lawsuit was both unmeritorious and retaliato ry is supported by substantial evidence. An internal union report explained:
	DIAMOND WALNUT V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was William Kanter. On the brief were David M. Kirsch were on the brief for intervenor. The Air Force argues that the conduct of the union official is unprotected under the applica ble federal labor laws. Because we agree with the Air Force that the conduct of the union official is unprotected under any reasonable standard. Fallaw advised that this session was not going to be a disciplinary action and therefore Egal would not be allowed to attend the meeting. Egal
	OPINION/ORDER Meyers was on brief for Local 702. Campbell were on brief for petitioner International Union of Operating Engineers. Nation al Labor Relations Board were on brief for the respondent. Seigel were on brief for intervenor Central Illinois Public Service Company in Nos. 99 1137 and 99 1139. Gunter were on brief for amici curiae American Federation of Labor Congress of Industrial Organizations. Was not
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were James D. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Strom were on the brief for intervenor. The University argues that it is exempt from NLRB jurisdiction under the doctrine of NLRB v. Concluded that the University did not
	OPINION/ORDER I. Greensburg Coca Cola is a corporation operating as a distribution facility in Greensburg. Neither party was able to proffer a witness who could explain why there were differences in language between the Board certification and the parties' collective bargaining agreements. Or testify with certainty whether regular part time employees were ever used by the employer during the parties' collective bargaining relationship. That employees covered by the agreements were not guaranteed 40 hours of work per week. Although these men were employed on a regular basis. These employees were not members of the Union. The Union never filed a grievance or otherwise complained that these men had not joined the Union or that the substantive terms of the collective bargaining agreement were not being applied to them.[fn1] Immediately after the Company purchased the facility in June 1989. The Union replied that the Company's withdrawal of its proposed language regarding part time employees was merely a change in form rather than in substance.
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction under section 10(f) of the NLRA. Because we are unable to discern the Board's Petitioner Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas is a committee of two local labor unions. Local 226 and Local 165 are affiliated with the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union (AFL CIO). 1 6 LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD v. Where the Employers are located. Is a Although section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Which are circulated in the area around Baltimore. Its primary office is located in downtown Baltimore. Employees in the mechanical and nonmechanical departments have elected to be included in the Union's bargaining unit. While the efforts of these employees have focused historically on the production of The Sun and The Sunday Sun. The employees have also had responsibility for publishing other documents on a regular basis. Other employees of the Company are represented by other unions. Still others are not represented by any union. When the Company and the Union were completing negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement. The Company was in the preliminary stages of developing the
	OPINION/ORDER This case is before us on application of the Board for enforcement of its order against Sheet Metal Workers International Association. Unfair labor practice charges were filed against the Union by Delcard Associates. Coercing and threatening employees seeking access to their jobsites and by picketing at jobsite gates reserved for use by neutral employers.2 The complaints were consolidated for trial before an Administrative Law Judge. The A.L.J. found that the Union engaged in a joint venture with four other unions picketing at the Stong job site and was jointly responsible for unfair labor practices committed by those unions. We have appellate jurisdiction over the Board's petition seeking enforcement and the Union's petition for review pursuant to SS 10(e) and 10(f) of the NLRA. Omni and Stong. 3 adopted the A.L.J.'s conclusions including the determination that the Union
	OPINION/ORDER Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees with unspecified reprisals because they engaged in union or protected activity. (b) Denying an employee the rights of union representation during an investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes may result in disciplinary action. (c) Refusing to permit an employee to speak with the employee's union representative prior to an investigatory interview that the employee reasonablybelieves may result in disciplinary action. (d) Failing and refusing to inform an employee and the employee's union representative of the specific charges that are to be discussed during an investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes may result in disciplinary action. (e) Threatening employees that they will be discharged for their protected or union activities. (f) Disciplining employees because of their protected or union activities. (g) Discharging employees because of their protected or union activities. (h) Refusing to bargain collectively with the American Postal Workers Union.
	OPINION/ORDER P.C. was on brief for respondent. Were on brief for petitioner. Before us are the Board's petition for enforcement of its order and Goodless' petition for reversal of the Board's conclusions of law. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The background facts are essentially undisputed. Goodless is a construction industry employer engaged in electrical contracting. The agreement authorized the 2 NECA to bargain with the Union on Goodless' behalf unless that authority was withdrawn with 150 days' notice of cancellation. Will be engaged) in the building and construction industry with a labor organization of which building and construction employees are members (not established. Whichever is later. . . . The employer is required to bargain with the union as the employees' bargaining representative. That any individual employee or a group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer and to have such grievances adjusted. As long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms of a collective bargaining contract or agreement then in effect: Provided further.
	OPINION/ORDER ORDER The petition for rehearing is granted without further oral argument. Is amended as follows: At 447 F.3d at 1165. The sentence currently reading
	OPINION/ORDER EOC is frequently required to hire large numbers of employees for short term projects and then to reduce its work force by way of a reduction in force (RIF). Our clients will come in one day and come up with a project and we have to . . . hire sometimes 50 to 100 people for a short term project and then lay off and get back down to a level. Among those hired were Wacon Cottingham. Each employee hired in December 1995 was informed of the short term nature of the work. The electrical superintendent testified: It was basically the same with everyone I talked to. I wanted to point out to everyone the length of the job because I didn't want anyone giving up a job that they were holding for a short term job. Mitch Williams knew his promotion was temporary and would end once the projects with the February 1. 1996 deadline were completed. Which is contained in its employee handbook. Working time is defined in the employee handbook
	OPINION/ORDER The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order finding that Harding Glass Company committed a series of unfair labor practices and that an economic strike against the Company was converted to an unfair labor practice strike following Harding's unilateral implementation of its final offer. We affirm most of the Board's order but conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence to support its finding that the strike was converted. Background Harding Glass (
	SVC EMPL INTL UN V. NLRB
	99-9500 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. TRIPLE C MAINTENANCE, INC. -- 07/10/2000 Finding that Triple C is not free to attack a collective bargaining agreement on the basis of a claim of lack of majority support after more than six months had elapsed from the time the agreement was entered into and that Triple C violated
	OPINION/ORDER Tucek were on brief. Were on brief. In each case the Board determined that its
	THOMAS DAVIS MED CTR V. NLRB Tucek were on brief. Julie B. Were on brief. Susan J. In each case the Board determined that its
	OPINION/ORDER Cox was a paid. Is known as
	98-9551 -- WEBCO INDUSTRIES, INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 07/11/2000 The involved employees were: (a) Stephanie Almy. Who was suspended for violating the non solicitation policy. Was subsequently reinstated to her former position with backpay. Who was suspended for violation of the non solicitation policy. Who was later discharged. Almy's suspension because after Webco discovered the suspension was in error. Which would have served to assure employees that the company would no longer interfere with the exercise of their
	OPINION/ORDER Recommendations concerning remedies are adopted and affirmed. Both the Board and Local 3 have filed objections to the Special Master's findings of fact. We presume the parties are familiar with the facts. Background2 Local 3 is a labor union whose organizing activities have been oft reviewed by this Court. Section 8(b)(4) is commonly referred to as the Act's
	EPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF NORTHEAST OHIO V. NLRB
	97-9577 -- FOUR B CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 12/18/1998 Because we find that the Board's conclusions and factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Convenience and the continuing good will of our customers. There must be no solicitation or distribution of literature of any kind by any team member during the actual working time of the team member soliciting or the team member being solicited. Persons who are not Company team members may not solicit or distribute literature for any purpose in any customer service area. Working area or any area restricted to Company team members. There must be no solicitation or distribution of literature of any kind by persons in customer service areas or shopping areas of the store during those hours when the store is open for business. Joint Ex. 1. A copy of this policy was available in the office of both the Roeland Park and Grandview stores. Both stores were the target of what Price Chopper describes as a
	OPINION/ORDER Line 5 the word
	OPINION/ORDER Rendering LPNs supervisory employees who are not covered by the NLRA. I. The Home is a long term nursing home in Vineland. The Board held a representation hearing to address three questions: (1) whether the LPNs were already represented by another union. (2) whether the unit was appropriately limited to LPNs. (3) whether three of the LPNs were
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Joseph P. With him on the brief were John H. Because the Board's conclusion was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. I Ceridian is an information services company that provides a variety of employment services to other companies throughout the United States. Consultants are divided into teams depending on their areas of expertise. Four of which are
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This appeal is an outgrowth of a dispute over the right of union representatives to visit the construction sites of a non7339 union general contractor in order to inspect for unsafe conditions or violations of prevailing wage policies applicable to governmental construction contracts. The plaintiffs are four representatives of the Bay Counties District Council of Carpenters (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Arlus J. Raskin was on the brief for amicus curiae 2 Greenpeace USA in support of petitioner. With her on the brief were Ronald E. Rattray and Patrick Muldowney were on the brief for intervenors Energy Air. Maurice Baskin was on the brief for amicus curiae Associated Builders and Contractors. Inc. a department store for which Energy Air was performing mechanical work that the Union
	O:\CIRCULATED OPINIONS\NLRB V. COOPER TIRE\FINAL OPINION.WPD With him on the briefs were Nancy A. With him on the brief was Helene D. Circuit Judge: The threshold issue in this case is whether the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had jurisdiction to enforce subpoenas issued by the National Labor Relations Board (
	OPINION/ORDER I. Facts and Procedural Background Systemaire is a mechanical contractor operating in the St. Local 36 is a St. The CBA states that
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This appeal is an outgrowth of a dispute over the right of union representatives to visit the construction sites of a non7339 union general contractor in order to inspect for unsafe conditions or violations of prevailing wage policies applicable to governmental construction contracts. The plaintiffs are four representatives of the Bay Counties District Council of Carpenters (
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs were Peter Chatilovicz. Quentin Riegel were on the brief for amici curiae LPA. With her on the brief were Arthur F. With him on the brief were Jonathan P. Holding that such employees have a right to request the presence of a coworker in an investigatory interview which the employee reasonably believes could result in disciplinary action. This holding was premised on the assumption that an employee's right to assistance emanates from s 7 of the NLRA. Holding that Weingarten principles do not apply in circumstances where there is no certified or recognized union. The Foundation claims that the holding in this case is unlawful because it cannot be squared with Weingarten. The Board's decision in this case is a reasonable reading of s 7 of the NLRA. An otherwise reasonable interpretation of s 7 is not made legally infirm because the Board gives renewed. It is a fact of life in NLRB lore that certain substantive provisions of the NLRA invari ably fluctuate with the changing compositions of the Board.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Michael F. With her on the brief were Leonard R. With him on the brief was Susan Brannigan. (2) there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's finding that the unions did not misrepre sent the intended nature of their joint representation to the bargaining unit employees during the election campaign. Because we conclude that the company's other contentions are unper suasive. After the petitions for repre sentation of the 800 employees were consolidated for hearing. The Steelworkers distributed a flyer at the 103rd Street and 111th Street plants stating that: The workers at 103rd Street don't want to be represent ed by the Teamsters and have overwhelming[ly] signed Steelworker cards ... The Teamsters are arguing for one election including 83rd and 16th Street workers.... The Steelworkers are fighting to get an election for the 103rd Street workers. Rather than have them. We will remain NON UNION.
	OPINION/ORDER Sparks were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Giolito were on the brief for intervenor International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Holding that the union was the properly elected bargaining agent for employees at Overnite's Atlanta facility and that Overnite violated sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. THE FACTS AND THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW The facts are set out in the district court's opinion. Presented in a manner that recognizes the statutory edge 1Section 10(l) provides in relevant part: Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice [as defined in other sections of the NLRA]. The officer or regional attorney to whom the matter may be referred has reasonable cause to believe such charge is true and that a complaint should issue. The sequelae were predictable: overcrowded parking lots. The record reveals that on at least two of the occasions store managers complained to a Union official who was on the premises. Because the Union's actual labor dispute was with the primary employer. The Union asseverated that these shop ins were efforts to publicize its grievance with Busch. Were thus beyond the statute's proscriptive reach. Asserting that she had reasonable cause to believe that the associational shopping amounted to an illegal secondary boycott because its real purpose was to force the retailers to cease purchasing beverages from Busch.
	TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, INC., V. NLRB Avakian was on the brief for amici curiae Associated Builders and Contractors. Argued the cause for respondent.
	OPINION/ORDER P.A. was on brief. Were on brief. Yesterday's Children is a non profit corporation which operates. Evidence was heard in October 1993 by an Administrative Law Judge. His decision was reviewed by a three member panel of the NLRB. The Board reversed the ALJ and found that the employer's actions were illegal because the conduct of the two employees was protected by 7 of the Act. The facility's name was changed from Agape House to Birchwood Living Center. 2 2 issued two written reprimands and then discharged. I. The facts are now largely undisputed. During the first half of 1992 Laura Cunningham was a nursing assistant at Agape House. Smith was a charge nurse2 there. Jeffrey Cake was hired as the Executive Director of Yesterday's Children and the Administrator of Agape House. It appears that the charge nurse is the head nurse on a given shift. That is. The person at the facility who is primarily responsible for the medical care of the residents. 3 3 Leavitt. Leavitt is alternately described in the record as the
	OPINION/ORDER
	00-9523 -- PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 11/23/2001 Public Service maintains that its refusal was justified because the employees at issue qualify as
	OPINION/ORDER The Employer argues that it should not be compelled to bargain with the union because the representation election pursuant to which the union was certified must be set aside due to the union's objectionable electioneering practices on the day of the election. I. BACKGROUND An election was conducted on July 20. The election was held during shift changes from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. The pre election conference took place at 6:00 a.m. that morning in the break room and was attended by representatives and election observers of both parties. The observer witnesses for both parties stated that it was not possible to see outside of the break room through the windows because the blinds were closed. Nor was it possible to hear anything that may have taken place outside on the sidewalk area in front of the Employer's facility. The Employer's facility is a one story square building with a square courtyard area in the middle. There is one driveway entrance leading into the Employer's parking lot.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. TradeSource is engaged in the business of providing temporary workers to general contractors and subcontractors in the construction industry. Because the bargaining unit dealt with construction employees who were subject to sporadic employment. Employees who were (1) employed by TradeSource for 30 working days or more within the 12 months preceding the eligibility date for the election or (2) had some employment with TradeSource during the 12month period. Were eligible to vote. Three were cast for the Union. Four were cast against the Union. Five were challenged by TradeSource on the ground that they were cast by voluntary union organizers who had sought and obtained employment with TradeSource for the sole purpose of gaining voter eligibility and organizing the company for the Union. They were temporary employees who did not share a
	OPINION/ORDER Avakian was on the brief for amici curiae Associated Builders and Contractors. With him on the brief were Arthur F. With him on the brief was Richard P. Tradesmen argues in part that its refusal to hire Oakes did not violate the Act because Oakes's activity before the Lorain Board of Building Standards and Appeals was not protected activity. Of particular significance to this case is the ordinance's definition of
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. P.C. were on brief. Selvo was on brief. These new councils were given
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because the Board Decision is supported by substantial evidence. It contends that it should have been permitted to litigate the qualifications of the discriminatees before the ALJ.2 In order to properly assess these claims. He also found that
	OPINION/ORDER Slusher claimed that he had distributed the driver's court record in connection with a disparate treatment grievance he was pursuing on behalf of another union member. Whereas the driver whose DUI record he showed to others was still driving for the Company. Slusher averred that he distributed the record not to harass the driver in question but rather to demonstrate to union members that Exxon Mobil was not applying the Company's drug and alcohol policy in an evenhanded manner and to explain why the union was pursuing a disparate treatment grievance. Slusher asserted that his distribution of the record was protected by the National Labor Relations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was David F. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. Kurnick was on the brief for amicus curiae International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1936. The Company contends that the Board's findings of unfair labor practices were unwarranted because the Board failed to support its finding that the Union met its burden to 1 The Board concluded that the Company violated s 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER Sitting by designation. 1 by the Union against Zurn/N.E.P.C.O. (
	OPINION/ORDER P.C. were on brief. Was on brief. Mavricos was on brief. Assocs. were on brief for amici curiae Gay &. The sole basis for the Union's federal complaint is its contention that the MCAD proceeding is preempted by federal labor law under
	OPINION/ORDER BACKGROUND No. 03 3699 The Union is the exclusive bargaining representative for all of the employees at the Company's Chippewa Falls manufacturing facility. Therefore expressed concern to the Union that these employees were detrimental to labormanagement peace. The Union was represented by its international vice president and its secretary treasurer. The four employee representatives were also available nearby in the Union's caucus room. The Company was represented by its attorney. There was insufficient work for more than four employees in the division where four of the crossovers were currently working. The Union was hesitant to accept an agreement that required their employee representatives to waive their rights to hold Union positions. The Union subsequently spoke to the employeerepresentatives who agreed to consider the proposal if it was put in writing. The committee will sign individual waivers confirming this agreement. 4. The company will recall four (4) additional employees in consideration for the agreement outlined in paragraph 3 above. 4 No. 03 3699 The Union took this proposal back to the employeerepresentatives and informed them that their agreement should be voluntary and that it was exclusively for the purpose of keeping four co workers employed who would otherwise be laid off.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Marc D. With him on the briefs were Wilma A. Yellig were on the joint brief for amici curiae Building and Construction Trades Department. Because its unionized employees are currently on strike. Alleging that BAT's decisions were arbitrary. The District Court held that it was reasonable for BAT to defer judgment on Grinnell's proposal for a new program. That it was arbitrary and capricious for BAT to preclude Grinnell em ployees from enrolling in already approved programs. The Union moved to intervene and this motion was denied by the District Court. Both Grinnell and DOL have appealed the District Court's judgment to this court. These programs are registered and monitored either through BAT or through a BAT approved State Apprentice ship Agency or Council (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was David F. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. Kurnick was on the brief for amicus curiae International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1936. The Company contends that the Board's findings of unfair labor practices were unwarranted because the Board failed to support its finding that the Union met its burden to 1 The Board concluded that the Company violated s 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER The parties settled the case on June 2 and Gordon was reinstated with backpay. ALJ George Carson II dismissed the � 8(a)(4) claim and the dismissal is uncontested. 2 1 on August 4. Claiming he was too rough when attending nursing home residents Pat Johnson and Marie Babcock. (3) and (4) because the suspension and discharge were intended to retaliate against Gordon for his support of the Union and to discourage other employees from engaging in protected activities. The General Counsel explained that the 2002 case was relevant to St. The General Counsel filed exceptions with the NLRB arguing that the 2002 case should have been considered as evidence of St. The case was retried on November 22. ALJ Carson found Belfry's claim incredible and he emphasized how suspicious it was that St. Gordon denied any abuse and there was no evidence of mistreatment in the physical examinations or social worker's report. Although Belfry testified that Johnson said she was afraid of Gordon. There is no statutory time limit for the filing of a petition for review of a final order of the NLRB.
	OPINION/ORDER It was a party to a
	OPINION/ORDER This case arises out of events that took place while the Union and American Polystyrene Corporation (
	WATERBURY HOTEL MANAGEMENT V. NLRB Kamins argued the cause for petitioner.� With him on the briefs were Jay P. Argued the cause for respondent.� With him on the brief were Arthur F. We deny the petition for review and grant the Board's cross application for enforcement. �� I. �� The Waterbury Sheraton Hotel was first opened in the mid 1980s by owners Joseph and Loretta Calabrese.� The Calabreses also owned a hotel management company. Was certified as the bargaining representative of the hotel's service. Have no obli gation to hire any of the employees currently employed at the Hotel property. Applicants were first interviewed by ". In cluding all members of the Union's negotiating committee.� Among those hired were three Yale undergraduates and one recent graduate whom. Our role in reviewing decisions of the National Labor Relations Board is limited.� We will set aside the Board's decision only if the Board ".
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Jay P. With him on the brief were Arthur F. I. The Waterbury Sheraton Hotel was first opened in the mid 1980s by owners Joseph and Loretta Calabrese. Was certified as the bargaining representative of the hotel's service. Provided that Waterbury would
	OPINION/ORDER Francisco Chevere with whom Ariadna Alvarez and McConnell Valdes were on brief for petitioner. National Labor Relations Board were on brief for respondent. McGaw is one of the largest employers in the region. Lourdes Irizarry all Line Production Clerks (
	OPINION/ORDER Argued the case and was on the briefs for petitioner intervenor M&M Automotive Group. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case and was on the briefs for petitioner intervenor East Bay Automotive Council. Was also on the briefs. Argued the case and was on the brief for petitioner respondent National Labor Relations Board. Were also on the brief. 4296 EAST BAY AUTOMOTIVE v. The Employer is an automotive dealer in Oakland. The Union was certified as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of approximately 16 service and parts department employees at the dealer. The Union was represented at the bargaining table by business representatives Don Crosatto. The Employer was represented by its owners. The final meeting between the parties was November 19. Jason Espinal and Donny Gouvaia were granted without notifying the Union verbally or in writing of any intention to grant such increase. Although the Employer contends there was at least imperfect communication to the Union as to the wage increase granted to Fernando Arcos.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Jennifer L. On the brief was Daniel M. With him on the brief were Ronald E. Donathen were on the brief for intervenor E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. Kovalik was on the brief for intervenors United Steel. That because the subcontracting impasse was unlawful. So too the collective bargaining agreement impasse was unlawful. That there was a lawful impasse on the subcontracting issue. Corian is a
	OPINION/ORDER The underlying dispute concerns a union election that was held in 1993 to determine whether certain Cavert employees should be represented by the Union. Cavert challenges the Board's ruling that an employee who had been out of work for five months due to an injury was eligible to vote. That the standard was improperly applied in this case. Election and Aftermath Cavert Acquisition Company[fn1] is a manufacturer of steel wire. The Union challenged the ballots of two employees on the ground that they were supervisors and therefore excluded from the bargaining unit. The three contested ballots were therefore potentially determinative of the election's outcome. A hearing was held before a hearing officer concerning the challenged ballots. The revised tally was 17 in favor of the Union and 16 opposed. Claiming that the certification was invalid because of the inclusion of Morris's vote. The challenges as to the supervisors are no longer in dispute. Morris was examined by a doctor who gave him a handwritten note stating that he would be
	OPINION/ORDER The central issue in this case is whether nonemployee union representatives of the organized employees of a construction subcontractor. 2003* This decision was originally issued as an
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Claiming that the Union's certification was invalid. The election was conducted pursuant to the Stipulation. Revealed that seventy one votes were cast in favor of the Union and seventy votes were cast against it. One additional ballot was challenged by the Board agent supervising the election. The challenged ballot was not counted because the voter Danielle Bourdeau was not on the eligibility list provided by Hood to the Regional Director. If Bourdeau's ballot were counted. The Union took the position that Bourdeau was a seasonal temporary employee and that. She was ineligible to vote. Hood concurred with the Union's position that Bourdeau was ineligible to vote. Also maintaining that she was a seasonal employee. In support of its position that Bourdeau was ineligible. Were unable to vote due to the death of a relative. Each of whom averred that a Union representative had said
	NLRB V. OKLAHOMA FIXTURE CO. Background Oklahoma Fixture Company is engaged in the manufacture of custom designed store fixtures. After the electricians were hired. The Union was chosen by a 10 to 3 vote. OFC informed the Union that it was seriously considering a return to subcontracting. OFC explained that it was experiencing some problems with its wiring and thought it might lessen its risks and liability by returning to subcontracting. Another contract negotiation session was scheduled for June 8. The electricians were terminated but paid through the end of the week. The attorney for the Union admitted at trial not only that no request to bargain over effects was made. It was also uncontroverted that the case did not involve the refusal to furnish information since it had been furnished. The complaint alleged that the subcontracting decision and termination of the electricians was motivated by anti union animus in violation of 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER For Board. *Judge Murnaghan heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. � 46(d). Since the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and the actions of the union and the company violated the fundamental principles of labor management law. I. John Hayes was a member of Local 118. The election was a bitter one. His supervisor was terminal manager Wayne Zakofsky. Drivers who started before 7 a.m. were paid overtime and drivers who started after 8:30 a.m. were paid as if they had started at 8:30 a.m. There was no damage to customer property and the damage to the truck cost Red Star $15 to repair. After which Morin told Zakofsky that
	OPINION/ORDER Salicrup was on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. That is to say. Was valid. That is. We lack the legal power to review what is. Analysis The Board is clearly right in pointing out that we lack the legal power to review directly an NLRB determination about which union represents a group of employees. The Board's 9 decision is proper. 3) petitioning a court to set aside the 6 6
	OPINION/ORDER Alleging that the Board's certification of the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative was based on the results of an improperly ordered December 3. The Board should have certified the results of a January 31. I. Cooper is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Findlay. 1 the ROAM bonus is based on how well Cooper performs in comparison to this goal and is awarded as a percentage of an eligible employee's salary. Who are on the payroll on December 31 of the year in which the bonus is earned are eligible to participate in the ROAM bonus program. The bonus is distributed to all eligible employees in mid to late February of the subsequent year. The 2002 bonus was significantly higher at 6.2%. The Board conducted election was scheduled for January 31. Employees questioned Cooper's management about the effect union representation would have on their wages and benefits. One memo was distributed on January 17. Will we still be eligible for the ROAM bonus? 2 Lemke held a meeting of Cedar Rapids warehouse employees during which he informed the voting employees that the 2002 ROAM bonus was expected to be around 6.2%.
	OPINION/ORDER The district court held that jurisdiction was not
	OPINION/ORDER We conclude that parental liability is appropriate on the facts of this case and therefore grant the Board's petition to enforce. The charges were tried in Pittsburgh in March 1991. By informing job applicants that Graphics was a non union employer that would not hire union supporters. The administrative law judge issued a supplemental decision holding PSC liable for the back pay awarded because PSC and Graphics were a
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Ronald E. I Flying Food Group is a Chicago based provider of in flight catering services to the airline industry. Is
	OPINION/ORDER BACKGROUND Because we are reviewing the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law to Local 1. We will summarize the evidence adduced at trial under that standard. Local 1 is a labor union representing electricians in eastern Missouri. Ruzicka Electric and Local 1 do not have a history of friendly relations. Local 1 assured Lindenwood and Ruzicka Electric it did not have a dispute with Lindenwood. It did not seek to remove Ruzicka Electric from the job or have work reassigned. A neutral gate to be used by neutral contractors who were not part of the area standards dispute. Local 1
	OPINION/ORDER Before the Court is a petition for review of an decision by the National Labor Relations Board (
	OPINION/ORDER The purpose of the strike was 2 No. 01 2894 to pressure the dealership to recognize the union as the employees' bargaining agent and to protest various unfair labor practices that the workers alleged were being committed by the company. Chiarito obtained signed union authorization 1 When this case was originally tried before an administrative law judge. The company has elected to contest only the Board's choice of remedies and argue that
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: Page 5. Was on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. Was on brief for intervenor. Finding amendment to a timely charge improper since the charges were not
	OPINION/ORDER Although some departments of the Observer are unionized. The employees in the business office are not. Who is the Human Resources Director. Podrasky listed several business office employees who were involved in the unsuccessful 1997 union campaign. Who were potential witnesses. Heusel explained to the employees that the purpose of the interview was to gather information for the Podrasky and Egnatowski litigation. Whether such information was helpful or harmful for the company. No one else was present. 1. Who was an open union supporter. That they already knew that I was part of the Union organization back in 1997 98.
	OPINION/ORDER The maintenance department's staffing was increased from four to eight employees in 1990. As much of the plant expansion as possible was to be undertaken by these employees. The expansion program was essentially complete. Kirpsak's supervisor advised him that the Weirton facility was facing a forecasted shortfall of $382. To varying degrees he was joined in his efforts by his fellow maintenance department employees Charles Artman. It became clear to Kirpsak that his cost savings plan could not be implemented and by June he thought it was necessary to act on the situation. Justifying the reorganization in large part on the fact that the capital expansion project was nearly complete and that it made sense to return the maintenance department staffing to its pre expansion project level. Kirpsak recognized that additional outsourc3 ing would be necessary and that certain retained employees would have to take on greater responsibilities. Speerhas were notified that they were being permanently laid off from the maintenance department.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on the brief. Gold were on the brief. Smetana was on the brief for amicus curiae Council on Labor Law Equality. Raises were based solely on merit. Its decisions were excluded from the contractual grievance and arbitration pro cedure. Their proposals were diametrically opposed: McClatchy want ed to move to a system based entirely on its determination of merit. Ninety percent of the employees were already at the top salary step in their class. Since the 1986 scales were out of step with the cost of living. McClatchy asserted that it was implementing its final offer and began granting increases to employees without consulting the union. Under the terms of McClatchy's pro posal as was true under the 1986 agreement the union's role was restricted to making nonbinding comments and participating in the appeal process only if asked by the employee. The only difference in the Modesto proposal was that it fixed the timing of merit increases. Increases were tied to the annual review process. The union complained that the posting was a veiled threat to employees.
	OPINION/ORDER 47 employees who were part of the Union made individual offers to return to work (
	OPINION/ORDER Eldeco offers two basic responses to these findings: (1) that the ALJ's credibility determinations were biased in favor of the union. (2) that the Board's findings on the various violations were not supported by substantial evidence. We reject the Company's claims that the agency proceedings were impermissibly biased. We also agree with Eldeco that its decision to terminate two employees (Waco Cottingham and Stephen Pope) was not based on discriminatory considerations and that the August 3. I. Eldeco is alleged to have committed unfair labor practices involving electrical work in the construction of K Mart retail stores in North 2 and South Carolina. The charge pertaining to the North Charleston job site was filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. A consolidated complaint was issued on October 31. The amended allegations are that. (5) telling employees that it would not have any union employees on the job. (6) telling an employee that he was being terminated because of his union activity.
	OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal by the United Automobile. Which seeks a declaration that the collective bargaining agreement between the parties is voidable because it was secured by fraud in the inducement. Was not a
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Nation al Labor Relations Board were on brief.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was John C. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. Circuit Judge: This is a petition for review of a supplemental decision and order of the National Labor Rela tions Board affirming an Administrative Law Judge's calcula tion of the amount of a back pay award. Thus were entitled to back pay. Bufco Corporation are Indiana corporations closely held by the Corbett family.1 For more than thirty years. International 1 Bill Corbett is the sole owner of Corbett Electrical. Initially he was also the sole owner of Bufco. Brotherhood of Electrical Workers as the exclusive bargain ing representative for its employees in its residential and commercial electrical units.2 Bufco was incorporated in 1970 and began engaging in construction work on single family and multifamily housing projects. Corbett Electric terminated its membership in NECA and informed the Union that it was repudiating both the residential and commercial bargaining agreements. The Board found that Bufco was the alter ego of Corbett Electric and that both companies had violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (8)(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Gregg J. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. I Mohave is an electric utility operating out of Bullhead City. Roughly twenty of whom are represented by the International Broth erhood of Electrical Workers. The latter are responsible not only for reading electric me ters. Although they have their own on site supervisor. He was one of two union stewards at the Mohave facility and served on a number of the Union's committees. His work history was generally uneventful until May 1996. The story that reached them was that Michaels had reported that the person wearing the Mohave uniform was a Guard Force employee. The actual facts were somewhat less dramatic: there had been no police arrest. Who claimed to have
	OPINION/ORDER FORSYTH ELECTRICAL COMPANY Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Is an electrical contractor. Kimball and Jones told Forsyth on July 19 that they were going on strike.
	OPINION/ORDER Nation al Labor Relations Board were on brief. Bolek was on brief. Cobb argues that the remedies are not warranted under the Act absent a determi nation that Cobb refused to hire. Nineteen applicants who were members of Local Union No. 196 of the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters. Namely how much backpay Cobb is required to pay and what other relief. Is appropriate. We reject Cobb's invitation to reconsider whether Cobb would have hired the Union appli 1 As used by the Board. At *6 (2000). cants in the first instance absent union animus because that issue was decided at the liability stage. We nonetheless remand to the Board for it to recalculate the amount of backpay owed based on our conclusion that Cobb may have had a non discriminatory policy of not hiring plumbers for plumber helper positions and that the end date for the backpay periods should take into account each Union appli cant's likelihood of transferring to another Cobb project. Is a mechanical contractor engaged in the business of plumbing.
	ANTELOPE VALLEY BUS COMPANY, INC V. NLRB Moss argued the cause for petitioner.
	OPINION/ORDER In connection with their use of non union labor for an ongoing construction project at Brandon Regional Medical Center (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Joanna S. With him on the brief were Arthur F. The company alleges that the certification elec tion was invalid because some employees in the bargaining unit did not receive their mail ballots. The buses are garaged at the company's facility in Sylmar. The parties entered into a stipulated election agree 1 Senior Circuit Judge Williams was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. ment. The ballots were due on October 13. It was outside the scope of the objection filed by the company. Argued that the refusal was not unlawful because certification of the union had been improper. It does not dispute that the use of a mail ballot was appropriate in this case. That the Board's refusal to overturn the election in light of the failure of four employees to receive ballots conflicts with prior NLRB precedent and is unsupported by substantial evidence. The company further contends that the Board should have used additional procedures to ensure that all eligible voters ployees.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: The issue presented in this case is whether a national collectivebargaining agreement. Despite the fact that the national union's members may have traditionally performed such work for other employers. Marrowbone and the Union entered into an interim agreement under which they agreed that all terms and conditions of employment at Marrowbone's mining complex would remain the same until the national agreement was ratified. At which time the national agreement was ratified. Article IA(c) of the agreement states that: Supervisory employees shall perform no classified work covered by this Agreement except in emergencies and 3 except if such work is necessary for the purpose of training or instructing classified Employees . . . the burden is on the Employer to prove that classified work has not been performed by supervisory personnel. Regulations and customs heretofore established in conflict with this Agreement are hereby abolished. Contending that Marrowbone was using nonunion employees to transport and deliver materials throughout the mining complex.
	OPINION/ORDER Background No. 05 1389 General Drilling is a non union company that owns large drill rigs and drills blast holes for limestone quarries in Indiana. Drilling blast holes is the first step in the process of mining limestone from a quarry. The following people hold high ranking positions at General Drilling: William Boatman is president. David Keil is a director. Catherine Diehr is secretary. These four are known collectively as
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Erin E. With him on the brief was Linda Sher. Be cause the ALJ's preclusion order was not an abuse of discre tion. Perdue argued that the subpoena was
	OPINION/ORDER Both of the Georgetown projects were prevailing wage projects. Steven Mitchell was the original supervisor of the Brown County project. Mitchell was moved to the OHP project. Authorization cards were not given to Stapleton because of the perception that he was 2 a friend of Pack (the project manager) or to Treaux because of his vocal opposition to the Union. The Danville jobsite was approximately 250 miles from Georgetown. Who was trying to open the store by Christmas. Wandstrat were ordered to transfer. Three of the four transferred employees were unable to travel to Danville. DeVaux informed Temp Masters that he could not relocate because he was a single father and had no one to watch his 3 son. He was informed that there was no work for him in Georgetown. Which was typically a holiday. We will uphold the Board's findings if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 29 U.S.C. � 160(e). Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that
	OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal by the United Automobile. Which seeks a declaration that the collective bargaining agreement between the parties is voidable because it was secured by fraud in the inducement. Was not a
	OPINION/ORDER Overfelt casually asked Sears what he was reading and when Sears responded. Asked him if he was reading the Union News. Sears testified that Overfelt then told him that if he was trying to start a union he would be
	OPINION/ORDER The petition for review of Weis Markets is granted in part and denied in part. The petition of the Board for enforcement of its order is granted in part. For Intervenor. Judge Murnaghan heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. � 46(d). I. The Board's notice with which Weis has been ordered to comply is reproduced here. The parts being numbered for convenience and to use as a reference point. The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. 1) WE WILL NOT threaten that our stores will close and tell you that you will lose your jobs if you were to select United Food and Commercial Workers Local 72. As your exclusive bargaining representative. 2) WE WILL NOT tell you that it would be futile to *Changes which appear in part I (2) and (7) indicate errors in the Appendix which we have corrected. 4 WEIS MARKETS.
	OPINION/ORDER The NLRB also found the Midnight Rose violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging one (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Although the rate of pay for the two jobs was different ($5.50/hour for a cocktail waitress. The women were looking for variety in their work. The pay differential was not significant to the women. Informing him the union was beginning another organizing effort and identifying Donch as the leader of the campaign. Vandiver told Franco the (1) The Midnight Rose did not file exceptions to those portions of the administrative law judge's decision concerning the 8(a)(1) issues and they are not part of this appeal. previous campaign had been a
	PACIFIC BELL V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was N. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. With him on the brief was Howard L. The union maintains that there is no discernible rationale underlying the Board decision because the three separate opinions of the Board members are in conflict. There are some expressions of uncertainty in the opinions regarding Board precedent governing the practice of
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for National Labor Relations Board. The claims of unfair labor practices arose in part from the conduct of a bankruptcy trustee who was in possession of the hotel at the time Horizons purchased it. The conclusions of the ALJ and the Board are contrary to law. Are not supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that the Board's order adopting the ALJ's opinion and proposed order is without error and is to be enforced as it stands. STANDARD OF REVIEW The appropriate standard of review is provided in 10(e) of the Act. A finding of the Board that the Act has been violated is upheld
	OPINION/ORDER Lynch Construction was building a maintenance facility on the Greenbrier's property. It is a major artery for traffic heading to and from the Greenbrier. Traffic along Highway 60 is especially heavy during the morning and afternoon commutes. The speed limit is 55 m.p.h. on the portion of Highway 60 where the Union chose to picket. The Greenbrier's security director flagged down a White Sulphur Springs police officer who was passing by on Highway 60 and informed him about the picketers.1 That officer went to where the picketers were protesting and ordered them to move their vehicles. Which were parked in an unauthorized zone along Highway 60. The general manager of the Greenbrier approached the picketers to ask what they were doing at the Greenbrier's employee entrance. The picketers informed him that they were picketThe officer testified that he already knew about the picketers before he spoke with the Greenbrier's security director. 1 4 CSX HOTELS. NLRB ing Lynch Construction and that the Lynch Construction employees were using the Greenbrier's employee entrance.
	OPINION/ORDER Before us are consolidated applications brought by the National Labor Relations Board to enforce twin orders against CHS Community Health Systems. CHS contends that the Board's affirmative bargaining order is improper and unwarranted. Was ignored. The Steelworkers'
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Is pre empted by federal labor law. Finding that the district court correctly concluded that the Wage Payment Act was not pre empted by federal labor law. Justice1 in state court on behalf of twenty six individuals who were former employees of BBC Coal Company. Thurman Coal Company 1 Defendant Justice was dismissed from this action by order dated April 21. C&O Mining Corp. (
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: EFCO Corporation (EFCO) and three employee committees seek review of the National Labor Relations Board's determination that the employee committees are labor organizations under section 2(5) of 2 the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that EFCO dominated. Challenge the decision that it is guilty of other independent section 8(a)(1) violations of the NLRA. I. EFCO is a Missouri corporation which manufactures aluminum framed window units. EFCO is incorporated in Missouri and prior to 1996 operated facilities in California. Fuldner established programs for EFCO employees that he hoped would improve the company's pro 1 Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in this circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. � 1331 (West 1993) since this appeal involves a federal question arising under section 10(f) of the NLRA. He wrote:
	OPINION/ORDER This is the fourth time we have waded into this dispute between McKenzie Engineering. The only issues are the extent of the back pay due to four discharged union carpenters (and their replacements) and what fringe benefits McKenzie owes the fired employees (and their replacements). We have jurisdiction under � 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act (
	GILBERT JAMES V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 1996.1 The matter was assigned to an ALJ. In pertinent part: Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in or is engaging in any . . . unfair labor practice. The Board . . . shall have power to issue and cause to be served upon such person a complaint stating the charges in that respect. The Union was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings. We have endorsed this approach. The ALJ also found that discipline imposed by a company supervisor against the fourth employee was motivated. That motion was granted. 3 In its brief before this Court. See 29 U.S.C. � 160(f) (providing for review in the court of appeals for
	OPINION/ORDER With whom Gregory O'Duden was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Roth and Judith Galat were on the brief for intervenor American Federation of Government Employees. Roth was on the briefs. Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Was on the briefs. With whom Gregory O'Du den was on the brief. Was premised upon an errone ous reading of the case law. We remand this claim for the district court to determine whether there is still a case or controversy between the parties in light of our decision in No. 97 1204. Which was organizing a nationwide campaign to replace the AFGE as the exclusive bargaining representative of SSA employees. Customary and routine services and facilities if the services and facilities are also furnished on an impartial basis to other labor organizations having equivalent status. The NTEU also filed a charge with the FLRA claiming that the SSA's denial of its applications for a permit was an unfair labor practice. At least where the complainant is not an affected employee. To have issued a permit.
	OPINION/ORDER Both of whom were limousine drivers for Atlantic. (2) there was a lack of substantial evidence in support of the Board's backpay award. Atlantic contends that Jenkins failed to mitigate his damages because he was unavailable for work during the seven months between his termination and his reinstatement. Because we find both that the Board's reliance on the evidence adduced was 2 proper. That there was substantial evidence to support the Board's findings regarding both backpay and mitigation. We will deny the petition for review and enforce the order of the Board. As will ef fectuate the policies of [the Act].
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was James B. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. With him on the brief was A. Farm Fresh was subse quently acquired by FF Acquisition. For ease of reference we will refer to the employer and all of its stores as
	UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION V. NLRB With him on the briefs was James B. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. With him on the brief was A. Farm Fresh was subse quently acquired by FF Acquisition. For ease of reference we will refer to the employer and all of its stores as ". Were outside the Princess Anne Road store soliciting employee support. Of trespassing have been issued by a magistrate for the City of Virginia Beach. That you advise these men that if they again appear on the property of the store on Princess Anne Road they will be considered tres passers and will be treated as such.". He did not want them anywhere in the store until the matter was resolved.". The right of access by nonemployee union organizers to employers' public snack bars was governed by the NLRB's opinion in Montgomery Ward &. Solicitation in restaurants cannot be prohib ited when ... the conduct of the nonemployee organizer is consistent with the conduct of other patrons of the restau rant.".
	OPINION/ORDER Because the arbitration agreement is enforceable and all of Adkins' claims are arbitrable. I. Labor Ready is a temporary employment agency that provides manual day labor to companies throughout the United States. Where they wait on the premises until jobs are assigned to them. A fee of between one and two dollars is deducted. Adkins contends that Labor Ready employees were statutorily entitled to payment for waiting time at Labor Ready's dispatch office. He claims that if this amount of time was added to each employee's workweek. He also alleges that Labor Ready employees were entitled to compensation for the cost of commuting to and from job sites at the prevailing rate of $.35 per mile. Was itself contrary to law. The Policy is contained within an enclosed box on the employment application. INC. is on a day to day basis. That is. I will be deemed to have quit unless and until I request and receive a work assignment at a later date. Harassment or wrongful termination that I believe I have against Labor Ready and all other employment related issues (excluding only claims arising under the National Labor Relations act [sic] or otherwise within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board) will be resolved by arbitration as my sole remedy.
	TEAMSTERS V. NLRB Which is appended to the Board's decision and order. The facts were largely undisputed. Where there was conflicting testimony. Inc. is a wholesaler of grocery items and
	OPINION/ORDER McKenzie Engineering Co. (
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. When he was laid off by the Company. A Union Carbide administrator explained to King the benefits to which he was entitled. Was entitled to holidays during his 120 day probationary period.1 On July 21.
	OPINION/ORDER First line of the opinion
	B&K CONSTR. CO. V. NLRB (10/27/1997, NO. 96-6776) Arguing that the ALJ's and the Board's finding of unlawful anti union animus is not supported by substantial evidence and is contrary to existing Board and case law. We conclude that the section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) violations found by the ALJ and the Board are not supported by substantial evidence. K is a general contractor engaged in construction at various sites throughout the United States. K hires both independent craft workers and union affiliated craft workers and is not a signatory to any collective bargaining agreement with any labor organization. All of the hiring decisions were based solely on the written job applications submitted to the company. Was in charge of the hiring of hourly employees for the Canton project.
	98-9522 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. F & A FOOD SALES INC. -- 01/28/2000 (3) compensate the employees for any losses that they might have sustained as a consequence of F&. Standard of Review We review the NLRB's legal determinations de novo and
	OPINION/ORDER Palou & Miranda were on brief for respondents. Were on brief for petitioner. This is a difficult labor law case made even more difficult because the pertinent doctrines have confusing labels. San Rafael was in poor financial shape. In mid 1978 the Puerto Rico health authorities said that the hospital would have to remedy problems in its physical plant or lose its eligibility to treat Medicare patients. It was conceived that a new corporation would be established. In addition the new 2 2 hospital was expected to be more than a local hospital and to draw patients from the Caribbean basin. Centro Medico was created in August 1978 to operate the proposed new hospital under the name Hospital Interamericano de Medicina Avanzada (
	OPINION/ORDER This case requires us to determine whether a majority vote for a representative union was actionably clouded by a sustained or inflammatory appeal to religious bias. We may set aside the certification of the election only if the National Labor Relations Board (
	OPINION/ORDER Once negotiations over a new CBA are ongoing. 2001 subject to the following automatic renewal
	OPINION/ORDER Reducing the number of transit runs which were open for bids. The Board found that the scheduling change violated 29 U.S.C. �� 158(a)(1) and (3) and ordered the Company to
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Craig E. With him on the brief were Leonard R. Pacific Bell contends that its refusal to bargain was justified by a good faith reasonable doubt regarding TIU's authority to represent the bargaining unit's members in negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. Because we find substantial evidence to support the NLRB's conclu sion that Pacific Bell's doubt was not reasonable. The petition for review is denied. The Board's cross application for enforcement is granted. TIU and Pacific Bell were operating under a collective bargaining agreement that ran through August 8. The second step was to have been a final vote by the unit ratifying or rejecting the merger. 1998 or as soon as practicable after a CWA determination that acced ing to a Pacific Bell request for early bargaining is in the best interests of Union members.
	B&K CONSTR. CO. V. NLRB (10/27/1997, NO. 96-6776) Arguing that the ALJ's and the Board's finding of unlawful anti union animus is not supported by substantial evidence and is contrary to existing Board and case law. We conclude that the section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) violations found by the ALJ and the Board are not supported by substantial evidence. K is a general contractor engaged in construction at various sites throughout the United States. K hires both independent craft workers and union affiliated craft workers and is not a signatory to any collective bargaining agreement with any labor organization. All of the hiring decisions were based solely on the written job applications submitted to the company. Was in charge of the hiring of hourly employees for the Canton project.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER BACKGROUND Petitioner was a subsidiary of Vencor. Bryan Stuart was After the trial in this case. The Hermitage therapists were paid hourly wages rather than a salary. Including work load and scheduling.4 The group selected deCaussin to represent them at the meeting with Stuart on June 23. 2 DeCaussin told Stuart that the employees were going to refuse to see patients that day until someone from upper management met with them to discuss their issues. Severs testified that the group informed Stuart that they
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief were Linda R. The Company petitioned for review of the Board's order on the ground that it is not obligated to bargain with the Union because the election in which the employees chose the Union as their exclusive representative is invalid. Its busiest time is during the salmon season. That is. There were only 51 employees. Are eligible for health benefits. Al though seasonal employees do not have the same preferential rehiring rights as those on the seniority list. Any seasonal employee who is laid off (as opposed to fired) is eligible for rehire and the Company tells all such employees they are welcome back during the next busy period. Of whom 114 were seasonal employees. Were sufficiently likely to return to the facility in the future. Subsequently the Regional Director found that a combina tion of manual and mail balloting was appropriate. 66 cast ballots: 36 were in favor of the Union and 28 were against the Union. Two challenged ballots were not considered in the final tally. The Company objected to the election on the grounds that it should not have been conducted until the next seasonal peak.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were Mark D. Shriver III were on the brief for amicus curiae National Treasury Employees Union in support of appellees. Our limited judicial task is to determine whether the Department of Defense has acted consistently with its statutory authority in promulgating certain regulations. The primary legal question we must decide is whether the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 authorizes DoD to curtail collective bargaining rights that DoD's civilian employees otherwise possess under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. We will refer only to DoD and not also to OPM.). The
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was W. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. With him on the brief were Michael B. Petitioners are individual employees who are rep resented in collective bargaining by the International Union. Petitioners are not mem bers of the Union. Which is the organizational body that coordinates the Union's activities and is also the collective bargaining agent for represented employees. Nonmembers who so insist are charged a reduced
	TRUSERV CORPORATION V. NLRB Buck argued the cause for petitioner.
	OPINION/ORDER John Iaci was an appliance repairman for Sears in West Palm Beach.
	TUALATIN ELEC INC V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This case is before the court on the application of the National Labor Relations Board (the
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Have moved to dissolve three consent judgments enforcing orders of the National Labor Relations Board and to vacate four consent contempt adjudications for violating the consent judgments. We will deny the motion for the reasons that follow. Some indication of the background of the order can be gleaned from the Board's Findings of Fact that the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was engaged in the manufacture and sale of tires at Pottstown. An object thereof is forcing or requiring . . . any . . . person . . . to cease doing business with . . . any other person. This court was again presented with a Decision and Order of the NLRB reflecting a settlement stipulation and a consent judgment. Specifically prohibited was any action encouraging employees of Gulf. BCTC stipulated that it was in civil contempt of the judgments entered March 4. The NLRB once again found itself faced with charges that BCTC was responsible for secondary boycotts. The General Counsel took the position before the Board
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER There were 21 eligible voters. Contending that City Wide violated 29 1 A certification order is not appealable. City Wide's only defense was that it was under no obligation to bargain because the Union had not been properly certified. The Board once again concluded that the certification election was proper and ordered City Wide to bargain with the Union. We have jurisdiction over petitions for review of the Board's decisions. Our function is to decide whether the Board's factual decisions are supported by substantial evidence and whether its legal conclusions have a reasonable basis in law. The Board's factual decisions satisfy the substantial evidence standard where the Board relies upon
	OPINION/ORDER
	GARVEY MARINE V. NLRB Dolin argued the cause for petitioner.
	OPINION/ORDER Who are not union members. Arguing that the union's complaint was time barred. That the hiring practices complained of were consistent with the NLRA. That the restoration remedy is
	OPINION/ORDER Who were eligible to access the website. Pilots Gene Wong and James Gardner were included on this list. Davis claimed he was concerned about untruthful allegations that he believed Konop was making on the website. Morella related that Nobles was upset by Konop's accusations that Nobles was suspected of fraud and by other disparaging statements published on the website. Konop believed Nobles had obtained the contents of his website and was threatening to sue Konop for defamation based on statements contained on the website. INC. 12459 claims to have learned only later from the examination of system logs that Davis had accessed the website using Wong's name. Because he claims the district court improperly quashed subpoenas for witnesses Konop sought to have testify at trial. DISCUSSION The district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. We must determine whether there are any genuine 12460 KONOP v. Which was intended to afford privacy protection to electronic communications. Which was designed to
	OPINION/ORDER O:\Slip\WP\2005\04 1317 Citizens Inv7a.odl.wpd
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs were Judith A. With her on the brief were Ronald E. Young was on the brief for intervenor Guardsmark. Where an employer promulgates work rules
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER I. BACKGROUND Terracon is a national engineering consulting firm which engages in soil testing. The employees were accompanied by Stanley Simrayh. Stated that they were there to seek voluntary recognition of the Union. We will employ the first spelling used in Terracon's brief throughout our opinion. Moussallem agreed that this was true. Moussallem replied that neither of these issues was a problem. Moussallem responded that this was
	OPINION/ORDER Claiming that its seasonal employees have no reasonable expectation of reemployment and are therefore ineligible to participate in 2 Nos. 03 1576 & 03 1894 a collective bargaining unit with Winkie's full time employees. The seasonal employment pool is drawn from the greater Chicagoland area. Their opportunities for overtime pay are limited to hours in excess of forty per week. Plant manager Sandra Schiffler told each applicant that the job was temporary employment and that it would last through May only. She confirmed that no seasonal employee was eligible for insurance. What is more. Winkie does not have a policy of recalling seasonal employees. Former seasonal employees are hired if there is job availability at the time the application is made. When former seasonal employees are rehired. They are processed as new employees. Two former employees were denied employment because there was no availability when they applied for work. Only six of them have become permanent employees. All of Winkie's new permanent employees were drawn from the seasonal pool.
	OPINION/ORDER A National Labor Relations Board (
	OPINION/ORDER Were on the brief. Such participation is exercised. Written acknowledgment of union agreement or
	ITT INDUST INC V. NLRB Hankins argued the cause for petitioner.
	SW MDSEING CORP V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER The Board held that the Company (1) subjected employees to a formal disciplinary procedure after it had become clear that their conduct was protected by � 7. Because the confiscations of union literature were unlawful. Which is considered offensive to the receiver or a third party may be labeled harassment.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Curtis L. With her on the brief were John H. With her on the brief were James B. The Oscoda plant is the largest. Was seeking to organize the employees at the Northern Plants. It is not clear that the Supreme Court's access cases foreclose the Board's interpretation that s 7 confers upon off site employees some measure of free standing. The Board's decision on this point is supported by substantial evidence. Supervisors from the East Tawas plant request ed them to leave the premises because they were trespassing on private property. Petitioner presented evidence that its no access policy was both neutral and justified. There was one excep tion: relatives or friends of employees could enter the park ing lot to pick up/drop off East Tawas employees as long as they did not exit their vehicles. The ALJ was unpersuaded by ITT's evidence. Other outside nonworking areas will be found invalid.'
	OPINION/ORDER We hold that the City is not preempted from requiring parties receiving tax increment financing to sign a labor neutrality agreement. The URA is one of Pittsburgh's redevelopment authorities that serves as a
	OPINION/ORDER P.C. was on brief. Were on brief. BACKGROUND The Hospitals are members of the Sisters of Providence Health System (SPHS). The Hospitals' nursing staffs are unionized and the Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA) represents the nurses. The hospital responded that it was too early to predict the changes that might result from a consolidation.
	READY MIXED CONCRETE CO. V. NLRB Teter was hired as a driver in 1991. The facts leading up to Teter's discharge are disputed by the parties. Ending in 1988 when the unit was decertified. Teter was suspended and then discharged. The ALJ determined from these findings that the General Counsel had made a prima facie showing that protected conduct was a motivating factor for Teter's suspension and discharge. As well as rebuttal evidence showing that regardless of his protected activities it would have (1) Section 8(a) makes it an unfair labor practice
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs was Thomas M. With him on the brief were Leonard R. Bor were on the brief for amicus curiae International Brotherhood of Electrical Work ers.
	OPINION/ORDER On the briefs was Brian T. With her on the brief were Linda Sher. Argues that a union of 11 guards1 employed by Wackenhut was improperly certified because it is impermissibly affiliated with a union that has non guard members. We find that although the challenged unit of guards was undoubtedly reliant on a member of a non guard union for advice and assistance. The Board's conclusion that the unions were not
	OPINION/ORDER The question is whether these two interests conflict here. We are constrained to conclude that California acting as a regulator. We hold that the California statute as written is preempted by the NLRA under Lodge 76. Gov't Code �� 16645 49 are hereinafter cited as. LOCKYER 5173 It is the policy of the state not to interfere with an employee's choice about whether to join or to be represented by a labor union. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to prohibit an employer from using state funds and facilities for the purpose of influencing employees to support or oppose unionization and to prohibit an employer from seeking to influence employees to support or oppose unionization while those employees are performing work on a state contract. � 16645. Two provisions of the California statute are at issue on this appeal sections 16645.2 and 16645.7. Section 16645.2(a) bars private employers who are
	OPINION/ORDER The Board found that the company's reasons for its failure to comply with the collective bargaining agreement were legally insufficient. Those findings have substantial support in the record as a whole. Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Linda Sher. With him on the brief were Lau rence Gold. Circuit Judge: These are petitions by Exxel/At mos. Exxel is a small New Jersey company manufacturing non gas aerosol delivery systems. Was justified in this case.
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief were Arthur F. The company also employs a single
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Paul J. With her on the brief were Leonard R. The parties were unable to reach a final agreement. An Administrative Law Judge (
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. All three buildings are located in close proximity to one another.1 Although separate signs identify the MTD and the CPD at the entrance to the industrial park. The divisions have separate managers. There is a single Human Resources Depart 1 The NLRB Hearing Officer specifically found that the MTD building and the CPD building are located 220 feet apart. The warehouse is approximately 200 feet from the other two buildings. 3 ment. Are governed by the same employee handbook and rules of conduct. Job qualifications for new employees are similar for both the MTD and the CPD. The employees are trained in different skills and use different equipment once on the job. Although some employees have been permanently transferred from one division to the other. Employees are not temporarily transferred between the MTD and the CPD. They have separate facilities. The warehouse is physically connected to the CPD by a conveyor belt. The MTD has its own shipping and receiving department and associated storage site that are located within the MTD building.
	02-7077 -- LOCAL 514 TRANSPORT WORKER UNION OF AMERICA V. KEATING -- 02/13/2004 1A of the Oklahoma Constitution were preempted by federal law and that any remaining non preempted provision was not severable from the preempted provisions. 1A that were preempted by federal labor law were
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Jeffrey L. With her on the brief were Leonard R. With him on the brief were John L. His name was placed on the highest priority
	OPINION/ORDER Jerome Wayne Johnson	03 13595 / 03 00036 CR J 25 TEM	07 12 2004


In re: Will C. Bowman	02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E	08 13 2003


In re: Will C. Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v.
	OPINION/ORDER Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. Bowman	02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E	08 13 2003


In re: Will C. Cohen	03 13162 / 02 23079 CV KMM	07 08 2004


In re: Will C.
	OPINION/ORDER The Union is the certified collective bargaining representative of nurses employed by the Alexandria Clinic. Patient care was not affected. As the replacement nurses were present to take over at noon on September 10. Or just have everyone go to lunch and not come back. Not show up for Urgent Care Saturday and have them wondering about Monday (when no one will come to work)!
	OPINION/ORDER On the briefs was Theodore R. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Collyer holds that when the parties to certain types of disputes have provided for arbitration in their collective bar gaining agreement (
	OPINION/ORDER At issue in this case is an application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Soon after the action was filed. Arguing (1) that plaintiffs lack statutory standing under RICO to pursue this case because any injury they suffered was derivative of an injury The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell. Because we reject the application of Garmon preemption in this context and because we cannot say at this early stage in the case that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient as a matter of law to establish statutory standing. Tyson's headquarters are in Springdale. One of Tyson's plants is located in Shelbyville. Soon after the indictment was filed. Tabetha Eddings and Doris Jewell former hourly workers at Tyson's Shelbyville facility who were legally employed by Tyson filed this civil RICO action against Tyson based on some of the same allegedly illegal activities underlying the criminal indictment. The amended complaint alleges that Tyson engaged in a scheme to depress the wages paid to its hourly employees by knowingly hiring undocumented illegal immigrants who were willing to work for wages well below those paid in labor markets composed of only United States citizens.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER That there was reasonable cause to believe that the Hospital had undertaken various actions that violated � 8(a)(1). In which it denied that it had engaged in unfair labor practices and denied that the Board was entitled to a temporary injunction. Conducting surveillance of its employees while they are lawfully striking. Judgment to this effect was entered on January 22. AFL CIO CLC (the
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. 558 (1st Cir. 1993). 3 E is an electrical contractor that does commercial and industrial projects throughout the State of Maine. James Lamson was vice president of 3 E's southern division. Paul Werner was the foreman for the Project. Campbell was not then a member of the Union. Lamson knew that Tonken was a member of the Union. Werner noticed that Campbell was talking to Tonken during a break. Asked Campbell if Tonken was talking to him about the Union. Campbell replied that he was. Werner then told Campbell that he did not like the idea that Tonken was talking about the Union on the Project site. That when there was a layoff. Werner then asked Tonken if he was there to cause trouble. Tonken replied that he was not. He was just there to do his job. Werner asked Tonken what the Union was like. Campbell was transferred to another jobsite. Claiming in large part that the findings are unsupported by substantial evidence on the record. STANDARD OF REVIEW STANDARD OF REVIEW We uphold a NLRB finding that the Act has been violated as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
	DAIMLERCHRYSLER V. NLRB Hortop argued the cause for petitioner.
	OPINION/ORDER FACTS Appellant Union is a labor organization that represents employees with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment. Appellee Best is an employer in the drywall industry. Best is a member of the WWCCA. Best and the Painter's Union were signatories to the industry wide agreement known as the 1998 2000 Southern California Drywall Finishers Joint Agreement (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Gary S. With him on the brief were Arthur F. We grant the cross application to enforce the portions of the Board's order based on these unchallenged findings of unfair labor practices. 3 Palace's principal claim in this case is that the Board erred in concluding that the employer's discipline and later discharge of Mullins violated the Act. Mullins was issued warnings for violating the Company's solicitation and harassment policies during the course of his discussions with a fellow employee about whether to join the Union. When it is shown that the misconduct did not in fact occur. The Board concluded that Mullins did not in fact commit the offenses for which he was disciplined. We conclude that these findings are supported by substantial evidence. Mullins was discharged for making an improper remark during a conversation with an employee of a vendor located in the Forum. To determine whether protected activity was the motivating factor in Palace's decision to fire Mullins. The Board's opinion on this point is hopelessly unclear.
	OPINION/ORDER By requesting signed union authorization cards in a state court lawsuit and (2) the Board's conclusion that Wright Electric discriminated against applicant Louis Lutz due to his union affiliation is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. The Board's order is enforced and the petition for review is denied. 2 Background The following statement of facts is taken in large part from the Board's order and attached appendix. Ouellette signed the application statement certifying that his answers were
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The underlying issue is whether substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that Kodiak Line is the alter ego of Kodiak Electric. The Board's findings are substantially supported by evidence in the record. Interior electrical work is any electrical work. That is located within the customer's property lines. Kodiak Electric was required under the agreement to make payments on behalf of its unit employees to a fringe benefit fund jointly administered by the Union and NECA. Kodiak Line was ostensibly created to perform outside line work that is. Although she is not an electrician nor is she knowledgeable about electrical work. The first was for Porter Construction Management (
	OPINION/ORDER I. JURISDICTION This matter is before this court on a Petition for Enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board (
	OPINION/ORDER On the briefs were Mark V. With her on the brief were Leonard R. Masters were on the brief for intervenor Teamsters Local Union No. 293. We grant the petition on the issue of impasse because the Board's findings on that issue are not supported by substantial evidence. Teamsters Local 293 is the bargaining representative for the warehouse unit employees at the Company's Westlake facility.1 A collec tive bargaining agreement. Was due to expire on August 31. This was necessary because the Company's members. 3 the key issues discussed were (1) holidays. The top tier was composed of employ ees hired before that date. To a statement by the Union's attorney at the outset of the August 28 session that no impasse existed because both parties had made concessions and there were a
	OPINION/ORDER Buck argued the cause for petitioner.� On the briefs were Mark V. argued the cause for respondent.� With her on the brief were Leonard R. Masters were on the brief for intervenor Teamsters Local Union No. 293. . Which it maintains appears to be punitive because the order would provide a windfall to the Union's health fund for healthcare claims paid by the company.� We grant the petition on the issue of impasse because the Board's findings on that issue are not supported by substantial evidence. �� TruServ Corporation manufactures and distributes hard ware to various True Value Hardware stores.�
	OPINION/ORDER I. BACKGROUND Frank Bros. is a construction company with its principal place of business in Janesville. Which were funded by capital from both federal and state agencies through the provisions of the Federal Aid Highway Act (
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Were fired. The adopted findings of the ALJ) as long as they are
	OPINION/ORDER Avery refused to reinstate the strikers on the ground that it had hired 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 permanent replacements a measure that an employer is free to take in order to withstand or end a strike. We conclude that the Board's determination was based on arbitrary and capricious reasoning. Background Avery is a combined nursing home/assisted living facility for approximately 500 adults. After Avery and the 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Union were unable to agree on a new contract. The evidence shows that Avery officials were satisfied at first with the continuity and quality of patient care and with worker morale. Unless compromises were made. The strike was going to be a long one. Avery paid the permanent replacements an hourly wage that was higher than it was offering the strikers. Less than it was paying its temporary workers and less than what the Union was demanding at the bargaining table. The Union offered on behalf of the strikers to return to work immediately. the offer was not unconditional.
	OPINION/ORDER Wal Mart prohibits its associates from engaging in solicitation on behalf of any cause or organization in public areas of the store at any time during which the store is open to the public. They found him in the jewelry department talking to two friends who were not associates. Lamont informed Shieldnight that his shirt constituted a form of solicitation and that he would have to leave the store immediately. All of whom were also on duty. A
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Stanley F. With him on the brief were Susan F. For the six miners whose benefits are involved here. It is undisputed that To ney's Branch Coal Company was that operator. Toney's Branch is bankrupt. The sole issue before us is whether Augusta and Williams Mountain can on that account be held liable as
	MICHAEL H. HOLLAND V. WILLIAMS MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for respondent. Holyoke's employees are represented for purposes of collective bargaining by Service Employees International Union. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 160(e). 2 2 285 (the
	OPINION/ORDER Because those employees were represented by the International Union. Precision was an entity separate from Pace Industries. Is an aluminum die casting company located in Harrison. Universal Die Malvern was unionized. While Universal Die Little Rock was not.3 Gaddy testified that Precision was interested in Universal Die because Universal Die had been profitable. The employees at Universal Die Malvern were informed that to secure continued employment they would have to submit applications. Although its employees were required to complete an application. All but two or three of those employed before the purchase by Precision were rehired without any thorough review of the applications. None of the employees of that plant are alleged discriminatees in this proceeding. 3 jeopardized its commitments to its customers. Applicants were required to complete a nineteen page application. Before former Universal Die employees' applications were considered. Their personnel files were reviewed. Applicants who made it through the initial screening and review were then required to undergo a battery of verbal.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Douglas W. With him on the brief were Linda R. Dai Ichi claims it need not deal with the Union because the Board improperly defined the bargaining unit for which it was certified and because the election of the Union as the employees' bargaining representative was invalid. We agree with Dai Ichi that the representation election was invalid. I. Background Dai Ichi operates a resort hotel located on the island of Saipan in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is lands (CNMI). By severely restricting the immigration of nonresi dents and by limiting the
	OPINION/ORDER That it intended to conduct a 24 hour sympathy strike at the hospital to show support for other workers who were planning to engage in a primary strike. Seeking a declaration that sympathy strikes are barred by the no strike provision in the collective bargaining agreement. Was engaged in contract negotiations with the hospital. The threatened x ray technologists' strike was averted. This clause was first agreed to by the parties during their 1971 labor negotiations. A. Waiver of Sympathy Strike Rights The term
	OPINION/ORDER The district court found that Plaintiff Employees' state law claims were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. And/or (3) Plaintiff Employees' claims were not ripe for adjudication. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE The Plaintiff Employees in this case are fourteen Enquirer composing room employees. The Cincinnati Typographical Union No. 3 (
	OPINION/ORDER That it intended to conduct a 24 hour sympathy strike at the hospital to show support for other workers who were planning to engage in a primary strike. Seeking a declaration that sympathy strikes are barred by the no strike provision in the collective bargaining agreement. Was engaged in contract negotiations with the hospital. The threatened x ray technologists' strike was averted. This clause was first agreed to by the parties during their 1971 labor negotiations. A. Waiver of Sympathy Strike Rights The term
	OPINION/ORDER We review a decision of the National Labor Relations Board that seven workers were not supervisors under the National Labor Relations Act. We conclude that the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. 2 Accordingly. We will grant the Petition for Review and deny the Board's Cross Application to Enforce. Surplus electricity is sold to Jersey Central Power & Light Company. The plant was built for the specific purpose of supplying Marcal with its energy needs. Any disruption in the steam or electricity supply will cause mill operations to halt abruptly. Shut downs are extremely costly because of lost production time and possible equipment damage. Plant personnel are organized into the following positions: Plant Manager. Those with the title of
	OPINION/ORDER Were on the brief. Mitchell were on the brief. Is required to pay fees to the Unions by virtue of an
	OPINION/ORDER Local Lodge 964 (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Linda Sher. Deputy Associate General Counsel at the time the brief was filed. Argues that certification was improper because the LPNs and RNs serve as
	OPINION/ORDER BACKGROUND Carleton is a small liberal arts college. Composition that are taught by full time tenure track faculty. The department also offers lessons in instrumental and vocal performance that are taught by part time adjunct instructors. Jim Hamilton and Elizabeth Erickson were elected. Noting that the department was unaware that
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Berens was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for intervenor Cook Family Foods. Cook fired nine strikers for damaging cars entering and leaving a plant that they were picketing. An administrative law judge ordered reinstatement for the discharged strikers on the ground that their misconduct was not as serious as the misconduct of two supervisors who displayed and sighted a rifle in the plant parking lot in view of picketers located roughly 140 yards away. Because we conclude that the Board's determinations that the supervisors engaged in an unfair labor practice and that the company did not unfairly discriminate against the terminated strikers were reasonable and supported by substantial evi dence. Lasted from November 1993 to April 1995 and was marked by continuous picketing of the facility and numerous acts of violence. After establishing that it would not discharge any employee accused of strike related misconduct unless the employee admitted the misconduct or there was
	99-2011A -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. SAN JUAN -- 09/26/2000 2000 The court's slip opinion is corrected as follows: On page 5. The word
	OPINION/ORDER Huck Store Fixture Company (
	OPINION/ORDER Rothschild and Tillinghast Collins & Graham were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. As was O. Which provided that [UBI] will not subcontract any work covered by the terms of this agreement which is to be performed at the jobsite except to a contractor who holds an agreement with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Expressing concern that UBI was
	OPINION/ORDER WILL & EMERY. WILL & EMERY. The plaintiffs in these four consolidated appeals are retirees or surviving spouses of the J.I. The underlying issue is whether the retirement health care benefits vested for life. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that their health care benefits are fully vested for life. The defendants are El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company and CNH America. Was established in 1842 and became a wholly owned subsidiary of Tenneco (now El Paso) in 1970. Included was all of the JI Case business (defined as the farm and construction equipment business of Tenneco) except for Tenneco's JI Case stock. Case Equipment was then spun off on July 1. Is now known as CNH America.2 In 1996. Tenneco merged with a subsidiary of El Paso Natural Gas Company and is now known as El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company. At times the opinion will refer to CNH America by its previous names. Page 3 forward contain the following language in Section 4A with respect to the Group Insurance Plans:
	99-2011 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PUEBLO OF SAN JUAN -- 09/26/2000 District Judge.
	OPINION/ORDER Was lawful. The AFL CIO (
	OPINION/ORDER MDI's parent is a non profit corporation that employs disabled and other disadvantaged workers. MDI was formed in early 1994 to build a plant in Grand Rapids funded by a grant from a large local employer. MDI was left to find assembly. The Grand Rapids plant was in precarious financial condition. It was held on December 16. Union supporters Keith Hawkinson and Ricky Thayer were permanently laid off. Ten were active union supporters. By telling employees a raise was not feasible because of the Union's campaign. The ALJ found that these employment actions violated �� 8(a)(1) and (3)1 because they were motivated by a desire to retaliate against union supporters and to discourage further attempts to secure union representation. MDI argues these portions of the Board's order should not be enforced because they are not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. It is an unfair labor practice
	OPINION/ORDER Collins was on brief. 2 Stacy G. Were on brief. Contending the election was not valid. MCS is a corporation based in New York City that offers its facility for rent for theatrical and musical productions.1 On February 19. Its letter stated that
	OPINION/ORDER Sargisson was on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. We conclude that the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence. The Center is open five days a week. Claiming that the Union's proposed bargaining unit was inappropriate because it included three Head Teachers and the Coordinator of Billing and Operations. Concluding that the Center had not established that the Head Teachers or the Coordinator of Billing and Operations were supervisors under the Act. The Center sought review of the Regional Director's decision before the Board but such review was denied on May 13. An election was held on May 15.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. This case is concerned with a secret ballot election. 000 in exchange for lighter contracts.1 1 It is unclear whether this alleged bribe occurred at Queensboro's Wilmington facility. Where the employees are currently represented by the 2 Queensboro's evidence consisted of affidavits which revealed that. Queensboro's employees were heard to have suggested that such occurred. Such conduct would not have been sufficient to set aside the election under Midland National Life Insurance Co. Or at an earlier point in time when the employees at the Greensboro facility themselves were actually represented by the Boilermakers. The implications are substantially the same. 2 Roth did not remember making those specific statements on the specific occasion in question. Testify to other occasions in which similar concerns were raised to him by Queensboro employees. He claims to have made responses similar to those attributed to him by Queensboro. Board supervised elections are entitled to a presumption of validity.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I Stark Electric is an electrical contractor that performs work primarily at commercial sites in and near Huntington. Stark Electric's principal shareholder and field supervisor is Bill Stark. Who is in his early eighties. Stark Electric's president and office manager is Karen Stark. Joel Stidham and Joseph Gregory left Stark Electric shortly after they were hired. Nicholas wrote the following letter to Bill Stark: The purpose of this letter is to make you aware that this office is assisting a group of your employees who wish to organize and join the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. At no time will we attempt to disrupt your work nor will we engage in any activities not protected under the National Labor Relations Act. Nicholas' letter was received by Karen Stark on May 16. There is no evidence in the record that Stark Electric knew which employees had signed authorization cards or were otherwise sympathetic to the Union. Bill Stark approached Eric Wilburn and told him that he was discharged.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. A. Griffin Electric is in the building construction business. It is one of the largest non union contractors in the northeastern United States. He is closely involved in all aspects of its operations. The organization and structure of Griffin Electric is relatively straightforward. Griffin is Gerald Richards. Who is responsible for supervision of the various Griffin Electric Project Managers. They are responsible for oversight of its ongoing construction projects. Reporting to the Project Managers are Project Foremen. Who are present at each job site to supervise day to day operations. Just before Griffin Electric was scheduled to build the Suffolk County Courthouse in Boston. The Union utilized four of its long time members who were also Griffin Electric employees. NLRB One of the Union's campaign weapons was the procedure known as
	OPINION/ORDER A consolidated hearing was held before an administrative law judge. Is engaged in the business of road construction. Brandt 1 The background summary contained in this section of the opinion is based on the findings of fact made by the ALJ. Which were affirmed by the Board in toto. 2 Brandt is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2). The company attempts to fill any open positions with these
	OPINION/ORDER A decertification election was held on April 30 of that year. It was not until August 9. That all challenges to the balloting were resolved and a tally of the valid votes resulted in the decertification of the union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the affected employees. Who was a master mechanic with approximately 15 years' experience. Who was accused of fraudulently over billing for a repair to a customer's 2 Nos. 04 2536/05 1089 Joseph Chevrolet v. Amend was initially suspended from work but returned to the dealership to assist in setting up a picket line at the dealership. He was informed by a member of Joseph Chevrolet's management that he had been permanently discharged from employment with the dealership and that the company would seek to have his technician's license revoked. Were laid off from work. Both Stevens and Cooper were master technicians. Yet they were selected for layoff despite the fact that the company had recently hired four new employees who were still on probation. Was so surprised by the remark that he noted on an envelope that he had with him.
	OPINION/ORDER Background The following facts are generally undisputed. Louis NECA is a multiemployer association which negotiates collective bargaining agreements on behalf of electrical contractors. Defendants are small owner operated electrical companies with few or no employees. While the letters of assent were in effect. The CIR is a joint industry and union arbitration panel.
	OPINION/ORDER Gaines was on brief. Was permitted to intervene on the side of the Board. Of most significance here is VNS's attempt to read the NationalLabor Relations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Jerry D. With him on the briefs was Douglas W. Atlas sought a declaratory judgment that its action was a legal modification of status quo employ ment conditions under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). That Atlas was free to make further status quo changes pending the onset of collective bargaining. The court further held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Atlas's second claim because it was insufficiently concrete. (Atlas) is a cargo airline. About half are cockpit crewmembers (pilots and flight engineers). The definition of
	AROOSTOOK CTY REGN V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Gregory J. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Canzoneri was on the brief for intervenor. The General Counsel thereafter is sued a complaint alleging that the Hospital's (1) ban on distribution in the vestibule. We uphold its findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. Abide its interpretation of the Act if it is reasonable and consistent with controlling precedent. A. The prohibition of distribution A hospital is presumptively allowed to prohibit the distribu tion of literature in any work area and to ban solicitation more narrowly in
	BROCKTON HOSPITAL V. NLRB Murphy argued the cause for petitioner.
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs was Kurt A. With him on the briefs were Arthur F. A complaint was issued. The possibility of conducting a fair rerun election was only slight. Because the Board failed to credit Cogburn's properly raised evidence of
	DEPT ARMY V. FLRA
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief was Leonard R. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. Kirby was discharged by Ford for alleged misconduct. A grievance was then filed on his behalf under the UAW Ford collective bargaining agreement. Ford has an agreement with the UAW providing that a grievance will be reinstated for further consideration under the parties' contractual grievance/arbitration proce dures if it has been successfully appealed in the internal union process. At the time when it was raised. Kirby was no longer a member of the Union. The question at hand is not difficult and the Board's judgment is eminently reasonable. It is clear that the Union's purportedly
	OPINION/ORDER Because NIBCO has failed to demonstrate that the protective order was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. I. Factual and Procedural Background The plaintiffs in this dispute are twenty three Latina and Southeast Asian female immigrants once employed as production workers at NIBCO's factory in Fresno. California.1 All of the plaintiffs are of limited English proficiency. NIBCO allegedly responded with a The suit was originally brought by twenty five named plaintiffs as representatives of a similarly situated class. Some plaintiffs were demoted or transferred to undesirable job assignments. All plaintiffs were terminated in the period between July 30. NIBCO asked where she was married and where she was born. Although Rivera had specified that she was of
	OPINION/ORDER When it refused to bargain with the incumbent Service Employees International Union.1 TriState is the owner and currently the operator. It was during one such period in 1996. That the union was certified as the bargaining representative for the home's unskilled labor.2 By the time a collective bargaining agreement (
	OPINION/ORDER Is owned by Steve and Kim Tunze. Thomson was the second employee Metta hired. Thomson was
	NAT'L LABOR RELATIONS BD. V. GIMROCK CONSTR. (4/20/2001, NO. 00-10372) (3) since the Board ordered the strikers' reinstatement
	NAT'L LABOR RELATIONS BD. V. GIMROCK CONSTR. (4/20/2001, NO. 00-10372) (3) since the Board ordered the strikers' reinstatement
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Ronald E. Place was on the brief for intervenor. Senior Circuit Judge: The petition for review in this case was filed by Lisa Jochims. A registered nurse who was formerly employed by Wilshire at Lakewood (
	OPINION/ORDER Case Farms contends that the election was irrevocably tainted by what it perceives as an 2 appeal to
	OPINION/ORDER Began a union organizing drive in preparation for an election to determine if there was sufficient support for a union at the warehouse. Fleming is a wholesale grocery distribution company that operates a warehouse in Memphis.1 In January 1997. One of whom was Duc Le. The manager of Human 1 The background summary contained in this section of the opinion is based on the findings of fact made by the ALJ. Which were affirmed by the Board. There were numerous allegations of unfair labor practices. We will discuss only those that are relevant to the determination of this appeal. Confronted Le while he was working in the lift room. Fleming programs the time clock closest to the employees' work stations with their schedule and then the time clock will reject any request to punch in outside of the employees' schedule. The warehouse has four time clocks and only the one closest to the employee's work station is programmed with their schedule. Gaither was with another Fleming employee. Zweig was the leadperson for the stockers and reported to the warehouse managers.
	C C EA INC V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. & Lichten and Craig Becker were on brief. Brown & Joy were on brief. Provident argues that its refusal to bargain was not an unfair labor practice because the district and charge nurses are supervisors. As that term is defined in 2(11) of the Act. The nurses as such are precluded from participating in collective bargaining. Whether mid level care providers such as Provident's district and charge nurses are supervisors under 2(11) is a significant legal issue that has divided the circuits. It is also an issue of some societal significance. Affecting increasing numbers of people who will need nursing home care as the post World War II baby boomer generation ages. The issue is significant in part because labor costs in the healthcare industry comprise a large portion of overall costs (estimated to be roughly 60% of hospital costs). The issue is important both to management. More hostile test than that used for other professions to determine whether nurses were supervisors. Nurses were not considered to be exercising authority
	SASOL NORTH AMERICA INC V. NLRB Gillece Jr. argued the cause for petitioner.
	OPINION/ORDER Directed SCA to post a notice to its employees that it will respect their rights under the Act. Because the Board's determination is supported by substantial evidence. Arizona plant.1 He started as a machine operator and was eventually moved to a maintenance mechanic position in May of 2000. None of the prior issues appeared to have resulted in formal discipline. Sandoval was considered a good employee. Was Sandoval's immediate supervisor. 1 Although the unfair labor practice of which Sandoval complained occurred in Arizona. The company's headquarters are located in Neenah. We thus have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. � 160(f). Sandoval was disappointed by the defeat. Although Sandoval was supposed to work 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. when he covered the night shift. Told her that he was tired. Since the floor would be covered now that the day shift was starting (this is a paraphrase. As he was driving out. He was approached by fellow maintenance employee Dan Harbottle. Nos. 03 2508 & 03 2912 5 Sandoval was leaving.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Robert R. With her on the brief were Arthur F. So long as the leave was taken for union activity. Its workers are represented by the Paper. Though there is no provision in the CBA relating to unpaid leave for union activities. Such leave was commonly taken pursuant to an unwritten policy (the exact nature of which is at issue). This case was precipitated in April 1998. Appleby's supervisors re sponded that Appleby had failed to receive training simply because he was so often absent from work. Jim Ely (Sasol's Human Resources Administrator) admonished Apple by that
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Robert R. With her on the brief were Arthur F. So long as the leave was taken for union activity. Its workers are represented by the Paper. Though there is no provision in the CBA relating to unpaid leave for union activities. Such leave was commonly taken pursuant to an unwritten policy (the exact nature of which is at issue). This case was precipitated in April 1998. Appleby's supervisors re sponded that Appleby had failed to receive training simply because he was so often absent from work. Jim Ely (Sasol's Human Resources Administrator) admonished Apple by that
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: Slip op. at 762. Line 16: In the sentence beginning
	OPINION/ORDER
	SASOL NORTH AMERICA INC., V. NLRB Gillece Jr. argued the cause for petitioner.
	OPINION/ORDER Murphy's related claim against Children's Home of Detroit was settled prior to the hearing on the issue of fair representation before the administrative law judge. She is no longer employed at that facility. 1 * Nos. 05 2122/05 2163 NLRB v. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Remonia Murphy was an employee of Children's Home of Detroit. Children's Home and the union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement. Murphy was a union member and held several offices within the union. Was later described by the administrative law judge who heard this case as a
	OPINION/ORDER Because the Board's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. The Union has been the collective bargaining representative for Newcor's hourly employees for at least thirty years and the most recently negotiated collective bargaining agreement (
	OPINION/ORDER The workers alleged that their own union retaliated against them because they sought to have it decertified. Industrial and Textile Employees Southwest District Council (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Mary E. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. Agreeing with the Board that direct purchase of the predecessor's assets is not a prerequisite for successor status and finding that the Board's application of the successorship test is supported by substan tial evidence. Harter was a member of a multiemployer association that entered into a series of collective bargaining agreements with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. An Administrative Law Judge found that HTPC was a successor to Harter and had therefore violated the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union. It held that
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER (Shares) is a nonprofit corporation that trains and employs disabled individuals who perform primarily industrial tasks for customers. The NLRB concluded that Shares is Wellman's successor and is therefore obligated to bargain with the UAW under 29 U.S.C. � 158(a)(5) and (1). I. Background Shares is an Indiana corporation that employs approximately 300 individuals in its Industrial Services Group. About 250 of whom are disabled. These 300 employees are divided into six subsets. Disabled employees 1 A glow plug is essentially a spark plug that warms the cylinders of a diesel engine prior to ignition and initially ignites the fuel. Once the engine is running. Shares purchased Wellman's assets that were used to produce glow plugs out of bankruptcy. Seven of those employees were Wellman employees discharged on April 25. Three others were Wellman employees who had been laid off but who held recall rights under the expiring collective bargaining agreement. A representative of the UAW sent a letter to Shares's general manager asserting that Shares was a 4 Nos. 05 1289.
	OPINION/ORDER The district court held that the grievance was substantively arbitrable and that the Joint Grievance Board's decision was not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. Inc. and Defendant Appellee Iron Workers Local Union No. 25 (
	ALLEGHENY LUDLUM COR V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER Before us is a petition for review of a final order of the National Labor Relations Board (
	OPINION/ORDER Piskorski were on brief. Were on brief for the respondents. MacDougall were on brief for the amicus curiae. 1 For convenience
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER P.S.C. was on brief. Were on brief. We have jurisdiction under section 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). Inasmuch as the Board's order is final and the putative unfair labor practices occurred in Puerto Rico.
	OPINION/ORDER When it denied petitioner's representatives access to its property to distribute
	OPINION/ORDER Precision argues that the NLRB erred in certifying the Union's representation because pro Union employees and one Union representative threatened an employee who was to vote in the election. An election was conducted by secret ballot on November 7. Five ballots were cast in favor of the Union. One vote was challenged but never opened because it would not have affected the election results.
	UNITED FOOD CMERCL V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER P.C. were on brief for appellants.
	OPINION/ORDER Secaras argued the cause for petitioner.
	OPINION/ORDER We hold that organizational activity is not necessary for the union's performance of its duties as the exclusive representative of the employees. To require non member employees to fund such activity is not authorized by section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the NLRA). To have violated section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the NLRA. By informing new employees that they were required as a condition of employment to become full members of Local 1036. We hold that Local 1036 did violate section 8(b)(1)(A) but that the Board's remedial order is too broad. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS It is uncontested that the petitioners. Are non members of the union who objected to paying fees for the organizing activities of the UFCW. Management was willing to negotiate.
	OPINION/ORDER We hold that organizational activity is not necessary for the union's performance of its duties as the exclusive representative of the employees. To require non member employees to fund such activity is not authorized by section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the NLRA). To have violated section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the NLRA. By informing new employees that they were required as a condition of employment to become full members of Local 1036. We hold that Local 1036 did violate section 8(b)(1)(A) but that the Board's remedial order is too broad. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS It is uncontested that the petitioners. Are non members of the union who objected to paying fees for the organizing activities of the UFCW. Management was willing to negotiate.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Arguing that the ALJ's and the Board's finding of unlawful anti union animus is not supported by substantial evidence and is contrary to existing Board and case law. We conclude that the section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) violations found by the ALJ and the Board are not supported by substantial evidence. I. Background BE&K is a general contractor engaged in construction at various sites throughout the United States. BE&K hires both independent craft workers and union affiliated craft workers and is not a signatory to any collective bargaining agreement with any labor organization. Their loyalties are to the project and BE&K. . . . BE&K was founded on the idea that we will hire our employees. Unions are businesses and need money to operate. Since companies are prohibited by law from paying unions any money. The only place they can get it is from the employees. In order to persuade employees that they are getting something for their money. One of the problems in trying to operate a Merit Shop is that we must always be on the lookout for unions attempting to 3 4 The charges in this case relate to the hiring practices of BE&K for a major modernization project at the Champion mill in Canton.
	OPINION/ORDER Concluding that the paid union organizers and union members were not
	OPINION/ORDER Asserting that they had raised no federal question in their complaint and that there was no other basis for federal jurisdiction. Entered an order dismissing their claims because they were preempted by federal law. As we will explain hereafter. It is clear that the District Court properly dismissed the complaint on preemption grounds. The only debatable issue is whether the District Court. Should have remanded to the state court for it 2 to address Appellees' federal preemption defenses and any remaining issues. We conclude that its retention of jurisdiction was appropriate. When the transformation from acute care to rehabilitation was announced. Several appellants were laid off as a result of this process. Was the result of anti union bias and that Appellees had unlawfully withdrawn recognition of the union as the representative for the employees of St. This claim is based on Appellees' decision to stop its acute care operation at St. Included in Count I was an allegation that this decision motivated by anti union bias had resulted in Appellees' being offered continuing employment only if they were willing to accept positions with Christ Hospital with lesser pay and benefits than provided in their CBA and to
	NEW YORK NEW YORK, LLC, V. NLRB Moss argued the cause for petitioner.
	INTL BRHD ELEC #99 V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER With whom Kraft & Winger were on brief for respondent. Were on brief for petitioner. Before us is an application filed by the National Labor Relations Board (
	FORMER EMPLOYEES OF BARRY CALLEBAUT V. CHAO Argued for plaintiff appellee.� With her on the brief were Steven H. Argued for defendant appellant.� On the brief were David M. Was not supported by substantial evidence. II ).�� Because we conclude that Labor s Fourth Negative Determination was supported by substantial evidence. Alleging that thirty percent or more of the production from the Van Leer plant had been shifted or was in the process of being shifted to Canada. That equipment was being dismantled and sent to Canada.� Fmr. Supp. 2d at 1307.� Labor then requested and was granted a voluntary remand.� Id.� Labor questioned Callebaut a third time. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[2] of production was transferred to Canada (i.e..
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This dispute between the Association of Flight Attendants (
	OPINION/ORDER Were on the brief. The matter in dis pute is covered by the arbitration clause in the CBA. The Board should have deferred to arbitration. Approximately 20 Burns employees at Yankee Rowe were represented by a union affiliated with United Government Security Officers of America (
	OPINION/ORDER The motion is denied for the following reasons.1 I. A brief recounting of respondent's bargaining history with the union is necessary to place the instant motion in context. The background is as follows. Claiming that it was not a successor employer and that the nurses were probationary employees. Was short lived. Was adopted by the Board in April 1992.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Richard S. With him on 2 the brief were Ronald E. Rosenfeld was on the brief for intervenor International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. When the election was held that May. 77 ballots were cast. 5 3 that were challenged. Even if no one of the foregoing activities was sufficient to upset the laboratory conditions necessary for a valid election. In the aggregate they surely were. Which U Haul answered with the argument that it had no obligation to bargain because the election was invalid. Which U Haul opposed on the grounds that the hearing officer was biased and this case should have been consolidated with another proceeding involving the Union. The Board concluded the hearing officer was not biased and the General Counsel had not abused his discretion because the other proceeding against U Haul involved separate and distinct violations. (2) the Company did not unlawfully refuse to bargain because the election was invalid for each of the 5 reasons epitomized above.
	OPINION/ORDER Torruella with whom McConnell Valdes was on brief for petitioner. National Labor Relations Board were on brief for respondent. This is a petition to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board brought by Pegasus Broadcasting of San Juan. The Company was charged with violation of sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act). Nor did it indicate it was 1. Was certified to represent all of the Company's reporters and reporter anchor persons employed at its television facilities in Puerto Rico. 2 merely temporarily suspending the program during bargaining. If this were a novel matter we might have initial sympathy with the Company's view that it was between the devil and the deep blue. It claims to have suspended its annual merit increases because awarding discretionary merit pay increases during bargaining seemed to it to fall within the prohibition on making changes with respect to mandatory bargaining matters. Katz distinguished between merit increases that are part of an established practice of granting annual merit reviews.
	O'DOVERO CONSTRUCTION CO., V. NLRB Gorham argued the cause and was on the briefs for petitioner. Richard A. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. That the Board was precluded from making a single employer finding in light of a prior prosecutorial decision not to pursue such a union complaint and the union was estopped from bringing the instant case. The Board's finding that O'Dovero has not ceased its operations is unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the evidence that it was performing no work nor bidding on contracts and that discus sions about dissolving O'Dovero began two years earlier. That the Board's finding that work was diverted from O'Dovero to Associated elevates treatment of a union subcon tractor and distorts the underlying contractual relationship. Because the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER One We have jurisdiction subpoena sought documents related exclusively to the Bridgeport facility. Arguing principally that the documents the subpoena seeks are not relevant to the Board's investigation. court's order. I. BACKGROUND We disagree and affirm the district AMR is a national supplier of transportation by ambulance and attendant care to counties and municipalities in 35 states. The charge was ultimately Also on August 14. AMR told its employees that the action teams were to be
	OPINION/ORDER One We have jurisdiction subpoena sought documents related exclusively to the Bridgeport facility. Arguing principally that the documents the subpoena seeks are not relevant to the Board's investigation. court's order. I. BACKGROUND We disagree and affirm the district AMR is a national supplier of transportation by ambulance and attendant care to counties and municipalities in 35 states. The charge was ultimately Also on August 14. AMR told its employees that the action teams were to be
	OPINION/ORDER One We have jurisdiction subpoena sought documents related exclusively to the Bridgeport facility. Arguing principally that the documents the subpoena seeks are not relevant to the Board's investigation. court's order. I. BACKGROUND We disagree and affirm the district AMR is a national supplier of transportation by ambulance and attendant care to counties and municipalities in 35 states. The charge was ultimately Also on August 14. AMR told its employees that the action teams were to be
	OPINION/ORDER Gorham argued the cause and was on the briefs for petitioner. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. That the Board was precluded from making a single employer finding in light of a prior prosecutorial decision not to pursue such a union complaint and the union was estopped from bringing the instant case. The Board's finding that O'Dovero has not ceased its operations is unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the evidence that it was performing no work nor bidding on contracts and that discus sions about dissolving O'Dovero began two years earlier. That the Board's finding that work was diverted from O'Dovero to Associated elevates treatment of a union subcon tractor and distorts the underlying contractual relationship. Because the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Howard L. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Inc.'s petition to review and the National Labor Relations Board's cross petition to enforce an order of the Board raise the question whether Prime Service should have been treated as a succes sor employer who breached its duty to bargain with the incumbent union and. Whether the Board's affirmative bargaining order is an appropriate remedy. Also before us is Prime's motion for an order requiring the Board to reopen the record. Prime notified the Union that it was in the process of acquiring Clementina's assets and that it would meet with Clementina's employees to discuss the sale. Prime's representatives ex pressed the company's desire to have a
	DEPT AIR FORCE V. FLRA
	OPINION/ORDER Gorham argued the cause and was on the briefs for petitioner. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. That the Board was precluded from making a single employer finding in light of a prior prosecutorial decision not to pursue such a union complaint and the union was estopped from bringing the instant case. The Board's finding that O'Dovero has not ceased its operations is unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the evidence that it was performing no work nor bidding on contracts and that discus sions about dissolving O'Dovero began two years earlier. That the Board's finding that work was diverted from O'Dovero to Associated elevates treatment of a union subcon tractor and distorts the underlying contractual relationship. Because the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER Contending that the election was improperly conducted. Rejected them because it felt that they were not The Honorable David S. As evinced by its second petition filed only a day after its first petition was withdrawn. Davenport therefore insists that the NLRB should have barred the union from filing a second petition by dismissing the union's first petition with prejudice. Representation elections are not to be set aside lightly. We will enforce the order of the NLRB if we find that it correctly applied the law and if substantial evidence in the record supports its findings. To show that the NLRB should not have allowed the union to file a second petition. Davenport's argument is entirely without merit. Are not present in the instant case. Guidance on whether the NLRB ought to allow a union to withdraw a petition for representation is provided instead by � 11112 of the NLRB's case handling manual. The NLRB thus was acting fully within its discretion when it allowed the union to file a second petition after the union withdrew the first one.
	OPINION/ORDER 2 were not liable to the Funds under �� 502(g)(2) and 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). 1995) (Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law). district court erred in (1) holding that New Bohnert was not the alter ego of Superior General. I. Background The Funds are employee trust funds established between 1962 and 1974 pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement entered into between the Builders Association of Missouri and various The Honorable Dean Whipple. New Bohnert and Superior General are collectively referred to as
	OPINION/ORDER The sole argument raised by Wal Mart in this appeal is that. Because we conclude that WalMart is precluded from raising this argument on appeal by section 10(e) of the NLRA. Store even though they were in compliance with Wal Mart's written policy on solicitation and distribution activity and discriminatorily caused the local police to instruct the handbillers to leave the premises and to threaten them with arrest if they refused. Exceptions to the decision were filed by Wal Mart. Jordan Rigsby and Kimbrough were ten to fifteen feet away from the entrances and were not blocking the entrances or exits. Patrol Officer Timothy Hendricks arrived and Staton advised him that the union organizers did not have permission to handbill and asked Hendricks to give them a warning for trespassing. Standard of Review The Board's findings of fact will not be disturbed as long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. The Board's conclusions of law are subject to de novo review. Its reasonable interpretations of the NLRA are to be afforded deference.
	OPINION/ORDER Because the board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and has a reasonable basis in law. Background No. 04 2329 The Union is a party to two collective bargaining agreements (
	OPINION/ORDER O R D E R It is ORDERED. 2002 is amended as follows: Page 2. With her on the briefs was Stanford G. With him on the briefs were Arthur F. That an employee who cast a ballot in its favor was ineligible to vote. I. Saint Gobain is located in Niagara Falls. A secret ballot election was conducted on August 23. Hotaling was on vacation leave for the week of August 21. Hotal ing was obligated to report his outside employment and had not done so. It would have discharged him before the election. Saint Gobain further stated that the day after the election two of its employees had informed a supervisor that the Union was advising Hotaling not to resign until August 30. The Regional Director found that Hotaling was on ap proved vacation leave from Saint Gobain during the week of the election. He was employed in the unit during the payroll eligibility period. The Regional Director concluded that the objection was without merit and recommended to the Board that the objection be overruled and the Union certified.
	INT'L BHD. OF BOILERMAKERS V. NLRB This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers v. Evans told the group he could not stop them from organizing but that they were to organize on their own time and were not to pass out union literature while working.<p> Jonjock worked as a boilermaker fitter/rigger from February 3 until Zachry discharged him on March 3. Jonjock was the fitter in a crew of three workers and was responsible for properly aligning the I beams before they were welded. Nathan Hand was Jonjock's helper. Donald Tuey was the crew's welder. The ALJ credited Roark's testimony and determined that Jonjock had primary responsibility for ensuring the I beams were properly aligned.<p> Jonjock apparently aligned the first I beam improperly. They did not ask the crew to take corrective action that day because reinstalling the I beam would have taken several hours.<p> Boilermaker Superintendent Roger Reed testified that. Reed testified that Jonjock then stated that Zachry's safety policy </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1365b.html">SAINT-GOBAIN INDUSTRIAL CERAMICS, INC V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200105/00-1183a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Karen O'Kasey. With him on the brief were Leonard R. Circuit Judge: Rejecting petitioner's argument that mates on its tugboats are supervisors within the meaning of the NLRA. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-9569.htm">02-9569 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. CHB COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS INC. -- 08/23/2004<BR></A><BR> Which the ALJ denied because CHS offered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1171a.html">HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs was Charles P. Strauss were on the brief for amicus curiae Council on Labor Law Equality. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-2047a.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The hospital was required to: 1. If an agreement is reached. I. The facts are undisputed and straightforward.1 They derive entirely from the hospital's pleadings and exhibits. Particularly from an affidavit submitted by a hospital administrator who was involved in union bargaining. The terms were described and the nurses were given the option of participating or not. Each of whom signed a document acknowledging that such participation was voluntary. 1. It insists that there are no material factual issues in dispute. The details of such a program were negotiated. As this is a proceeding in civil. The precise status of the hospital's negotiations with the union is not described. It is clear. That no impasse had occurred. 4 of a decree merely because it may have been done innocently. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/05-1392a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Lynn E. Bryant Rogers were on the brief for amici Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations in support of petitioner and reversal of the NLRB's judgment. With him on the brief were Ronald E. Were on the brief for intervenor State of Connecticut. The Casino is about an hour's drive from Los Angeles. Of the casino's patrons are nonmembers who come from outside the reservation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-1297a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Michael Hoffman and Robert G. With her on the brief were Leonard R. The company contends that the Board's conclusion that it violated s 8(a)(1) and (3) by discharging John Ramirez for engaging in union activity was unsupported by substantial evidence. That his reinstatement with backpay was an abuse of discre tion and inconsistent with the after acquired evidence rule. Was asked to assist in organizing the company's work force. He was an employee of G&L Metal but was discharged for absenteeism and for attempting to organize workers. We review his activi ties in light of the company's contention that Ramirez was harassing employees and. His activities were not protect ed by the Act. That even if Ramirez's conduct were protected. The company would have terminated Ramirez even in the absence of protected conduct. Nor did he tell Ramirez that he was uninterested in joining a union. Asked him whether he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0138n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner argues that the NLRB erred in determining that there was substantial evidence that the company threatened one of its former employees with more onerous working conditions because of his support for the union. Because we find that there was substantial evidence of a threat of more onerous working conditions and discriminatory discharge based on union membership. A trip that was approximately 100 miles each way. Although the union did not have a job for McCoy at that time. Now you are going to start paying to go to work. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1183a.html">BRUSCO TUG AND BARGE V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Triplett argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966776.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the ALJ's and the Board's finding of unlawful anti union animus is not supported by substantial evidence and is contrary to existing Board and case law. We conclude that the section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) violations found by the ALJ and the Board are not supported by substantial evidence. I. Background BE & K is a general contractor engaged in construction at various sites throughout the United States. BE & K hires both independent craft workers and union affiliated craft workers and is not a signatory to any collective bargaining agreement with any labor organization. Their loyalties are to the project and BE & K.... BE & K was founded on the idea that we will hire our employees. Unions are businesses and need money to operate. Since companies are prohibited by law from paying unions any money. The only place they can get it is from the employees. In order to persuade employees that they are getting something for their money. All of the hiring decisions were based solely on the written job applications submitted to the company. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1767a.html">INTL ASSN MCHNTS #64 V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1421.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.S.C.</U> were on brief. <U>National Labor Relations Board</U> were on brief. Because the Board's order is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Some of the casino employees are represented by the Asociació. Ortiz replied that the matter was out of his hands. Krans stated that the then existing group coverage was provided through a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/95-3688.opa.html">INT'L BHD. OF BOILERMAKERS V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers v. Evans told the group he could not stop them from organizing but that they were to organize on their own time and were not to pass out union literature while working.<p> Jonjock worked as a boilermaker fitter/rigger from February 3 until Zachry discharged him on March 3. Jonjock was the fitter in a crew of three workers and was responsible for properly aligning the I beams before they were welded. Nathan Hand was Jonjock's helper. Donald Tuey was the crew's welder. The ALJ credited Roark's testimony and determined that Jonjock had primary responsibility for ensuring the I beams were properly aligned.<p> Jonjock apparently aligned the first I beam improperly. They did not ask the crew to take corrective action that day because reinstalling the I beam would have taken several hours.<p> Boilermaker Superintendent Roger Reed testified that. Reed testified that Jonjock then stated that Zachry's safety policy </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1997/97a1505p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which we will refer to as the voting room. When the doors were open. Because the tenor of the lyrics is so important to the resolution of the case. We recite the words of the songs: First song: Throughout North America you see us on the job from Atlanta to Calgary Vancouver to Cape Cod You can't tell us by our color you can't tell us by our hat we're the backbone of the country we take pride in being that We're brothers and we're sisters working hard for what is fair you can always tell a Teamster by that certain pride he wears Meeting all the challenges united we stand tall Proud to be a Teamster that's why we'll never fall We are the North Americans from sea to shining sea we backed our country in the fight we earned the right to be When FDR put out the call we kept him rolling through it all we are the workers who stand united we're Teamsters one and all We're carving out a better life for our loved ones old and young we're giving them the melody the song that's not been sung In a moment of reflection I close my eyes and see the dreams our fathers had for us are now reality Second song: Let's hail the Teamsters Union and sing of it with pride Remember Teamster members. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199811/97-1524a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Deputy Associate General Counsel at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. We conclude that the NLRB's decision was not based on substan tial evidence and therefore. Eligible voters are those in the unit who were em ployed during the payroll period ... [ending September 15]. The rerun election was conducted on October 6. Fourteen were for unionization. Thirteen were against and the Union challenged one ballot. Jackson was assigned a vehicle and generally worked alone. While the Union initially challenged Jackson's ballot on the ground that he was a member of management. Cable was one of nine cable television operations Paragon Northeast operated and Primestar was one of its two satellite service divisions. The hearing officer decided that Jackson was not a regular part time employee as of the eligibility date. Noting an earlier Board decision that had declared ineligible an employee who was in the bargaining unit before the eligibility date but had not performed unit work for a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982592.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Stipulation also limited voting eligibility to those employees </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0138p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Palmer Donavin and P D Midwest have at all relevant times been affiliated corporations. The Regional Director found that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200601/04-1366a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were William E. With him on the brief were John H. Detroit News' decision to terminate his employment was motivated in part by Hydorn's protected union activity. That Detroit News failed to prove it would have fired him even in the absence of this activity. Senior Circuit Judge Edwards was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. * 3 251 N.L.R.B. 1083 (1980). That an employee's protected conduct was a motivating factor in the employer's decision. The burden of persuasion shifts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/993513.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION Before us is an appeal from the order of the District Court granting a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Act (WDA or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200212/01-1351a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Celeste M. With him on the brief were Arthur F. McCracken were on the brief for intervenor. Circuit Judge: The issue in these consolidated petitions for review of orders of the National Labor Relations Board is whether employees of contractors working on a casino's property have labor organizing rights equivalent to those possessed by the casino's employees. New York New York Hotel and Casino is located on the Strip in Las Vegas. When they are off duty. The bars are off limits at all times. The following events were part of that campaign. Told the Ark employees that they were trespassing and that they were not allowed to distribute literature on NYNY's property. (All of the trespass citations issued to the Ark employees in 1998 were dropped.). Their s 7 rights are equivalent to those of the employer's own employees. Agreeing that the s 7 rights of the Ark employees were equivalent to those of NYNY's employees. That in both cases the Ark employees were engaging in organization activities in non work areas of NYNY's property. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1155a.html">RANDALL WAREHSE AZ V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Ray argued the cause for the petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1242b.html">INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES, V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1171a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Charles P. Strauss were on the brief for amicus curiae Council on Labor Law Equality. With him on the brief were John H. Meiklejohn was on the brief for intervenor International Union. At issue before us is whether the sever ance benefits under the EBA were subject to the rule enunci ated in NLRB v. It is generally held that. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2734.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Were on brief. Was on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0412n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an action for review of an order by the National Labor Relations Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-1060a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him 2 on the brief was Lawrence Lorber. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Acting General Counsel at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief was Joseph J. The battle lines over organizing unions among faculty have been drawn with predictable arguments. College and university administrations typically argue that their faculties' involvement in academic affairs is extensive and managerial. Unions argue it is limited and circumscribed. So it is here. Petitioner Point Park University (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200211/01-1365a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was Stanford G. With him on the briefs were Arthur F. That an employee who cast a ballot in its favor was ineligible to vote. I. Saint Gobain is located in Niagara Falls. A secret ballot election was conducted on August 23. Hotaling was on vacation leave for the week of August 21. Hotal ing was obligated to report his outside employment and had not done so. It would have discharged him before the election. Saint Gobain further stated that the day after the election two of its employees had informed a supervisor that the Union was advising Hotaling not to resign until August 30. The Regional Director found that Hotaling was on ap proved vacation leave from Saint Gobain during the week of the election. He was employed in the unit during the payroll eligibility period. The Regional Director concluded that the objection was without merit and recommended to the Board that the objection be overruled and the Union certified. The Regional Director viewed Saint Gobain's argument that it would have discharged Hotaling had it known of his accep tance of another full time position to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1365a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pittman argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1422a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tisch argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/05-1305a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Brian M. With her on the brief were Ronald Meisburg. With him on the brief was Ira J. Company policies governing employee conduct are set forth in a handbook titled the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4079.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It was no surprise that when UTA established light rail service. The question in this appeal is whether these employees are entitled under either federal law�the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (UMTA). This service was dubbed TRAX. UTA employees were covered by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by Local 382. The vast majority of TRAX's 150 employees are transferees from the 1000 member bus division. UTA was violating their collective bargaining rights. Their motion was denied. These appeals are consolidated before us. Broadly arguing that UTA's failure to afford TRAX employees a separate bargaining unit with separate representation is a violation of UMTA and Utah Code � 17A 2 1031. Their primary argument is that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for UTA because it misapplied state and federal law. Appellants claim that the district court should not have denied either their motion for discovery or their motion to amend the complaint. A. Existence of Appropriate Bargaining Unit Appellants' primary argument is that the district court erred in concluding that TRAX employees were not entitled to a separate bargaining representative under UMTA and Utah Code � 17A 2 1301. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1666.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. LLP</U> were on brief. 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening to subcontract employees' work and reduce employees' benefits if the union was successful and by giving employees the impression that their union activities were under surveillance. The dissent's banner is carried into this court by the Hospital. Which also argues that the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and that the Board's decision goes well beyond the established case law under the doctrine of <U>Wright Line</U>. The Hospital says that it fired Arroyo because he was insubordinate and had a history of employment problems. It also says that statements it made to its employees were merely in response to disinformation and propaganda from the union. Because the Board order is clearly supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. This court must accept the Board's factual findings unless those findings are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//alpha-idx.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eleventh Circuit
	PALL CORPORATION V. NLRB Budd argued the cause for petitioner.
	OPINION/ORDER I. BE&K is a non union merit shop construction contractor headquartered judgment. in Birmingham. It performs in plant and construction work for BE&K was hired by Potlatch various industries throughout the country. Potlatch is a paper manufacturing company headquartered in San Francisco. 000. 1 Four bids were George Hight. Potlatch employees at the Cypress Bend paper mill are represented by two local Paperworkers unions. A maintenance local and a production local.2 The Paperworkers are an international union that represents in plant production and maintenance workers at paper mills throughout the United States. The evidence at trial indicated that the local unions and the company maintain a BE&K began preparations 1 The bid amount was later reduced to approximately $575. The local unions were originally named as defendants in this action. The meeting was attended by thirteen Potlatch officials. The president and chief operating officer who was based in San Francisco but was in Arkansas to attend meetings.
	OPINION/ORDER Eleventh Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Ronald E. Circuit Judge: The threshold issue in these consolidated petitions for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board and the Board's cross application for enforcement is whether M&M Backhoe Service. Union organizing campaigns are complicated by the fact that employees frequently work for multiple companies over short. M&M is a small. To visit M&M's worksite and to have the employees sign authorization cards recognizing the union. That a majority of its employees have authorized the Union to represent them in collective bargaining
	OPINION/ORDER Eleventh Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER Eleventh Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER I. Before this court is a petition for review by Yellow Freight System. Our jurisdiction is conferred by 29 U.S.C. � 160(f). Yellow Freight's Petition for Review Yellow Freight's petition for review requires us to decide whether the Board's determination that John Mendez would have been hired as a regular employee of Yellow Freight but for his protected activity is supported by substantial evidence. Yellow Freight is a unionized trucking company operating over six hundred terminals nationwide. Employees at Yellow Freight are classified as either
	OPINION/ORDER This is a suit to enjoin enforcement of Chapter 31 of the General Ordinances of Milwaukee County. Primarily on the ground that the chapter is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. (We will not have to discuss the plaintiff's other grounds.). Chapter 31 requires firms that have contracts with the County for the provision of transportation and other services for elderly and disabled County residents to negotiate
	OPINION/ORDER Was called to a meeting with two of his supervisors. The General Counsel must make a prima facie showing 2 that protected conduct was a
	OPINION/ORDER Charnas & Birmingham was on brief for respondent. Were on brief for petitioner. As we conclude that there is substantial evidentiary support for the Board order. Is the central governing body for nine local unions affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America. These nonpartic ipating employers may bind themselves to the negotiated MA simply by executing what are known as
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction pursuant to � 10(e) of the Act (29 U.S.C. � 160(e)) and. Hold that the decision of the Board was supported by sufficient evidence based on the record as a whole and therefore grant enforcement of the Board's petition. The facts of this case are. Not in dispute and have been reported below in the decisions of the Board and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Teamsters Local 373 (Union) was certified as the collective bargaining representative of the drivers. The Company introduced a series of proposals that would have frozen wages. The parties met for their last bargaining session in September of 1996 and still have not signed a collective bargaining agreement. 1 and 8(a)(5) of the Act. 1 The � 8(a)(3) charge was withdrawn at trial. 2 A trial was held before an ALJ in March of 1997 and the judge issued a decision on September 29. Before this Court is the Board's petition to enforce its Order. Which is based on a finding that the Company committed four major violations of the National Labor Relations Act.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Senior Circuit Judge O R D E R It is ORDERED by the Court that the opinion of October 25. With him on the brief was Kir sten Lea Doolittle. With him on the brief were Arthur F. The employer claimed that it had not authorized the negotiators and therefore was not bound by the agreement. It also argued that the union's failure to have obtained majority status excused the employ er's non compliance. It ruled that the allegedly defective language in that clause was severable and therefore did not justify the employer's refusal to abide by the agreement. Because there is little overlap between the issues relating to the negotiations and majority status on the one hand. Our review is governed by s 10(e) of the Act. Its reasonable interpreta tions of the Act are entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is in the business of painting and repainting bridges. Was president of the Association and served on its negotiating committee. Beam and Association Secretary Treasurer Ken Bowen told the union that they were representing seven named employers.
	OPINION/ORDER Ger ard Morales was on brief. Jr. was on brief for amicus curiae Council on Labor Law Equality. Were on brief. I. The facts before us are straightforward.
	B B & L INC. V. NLRB
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Tom A. With him on the brief were Frank W. Assistant Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief were Daniel M. Was rebuffed. An institution known as the
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Dan S. With him on the briefs was Philip B. The EEOC argues that Lutheran waived its claim that the report is protected by the attorney client and work product privileges by failing to comply with a regulation requiring subpoena recipients to present any objections to the Commis sion within five days.
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief were Linda Sher. With him on the brief was Gary S. The Board held that unions have no obligation to tell employees who have not yet exercised their Beck rights what percentage of dues are spent on nonrepre sentational activities. Employees who choose not to become full union members are called
	INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES V. NLRB AFL CIO CLC.
	FELIS INDUST INC V. NLRB Stergios argued the cause for petitioner.
	OPINION/ORDER The order was based on the Board's findings that St. Clair committed unfair labor practices by refusing to meet and bargain after the union won the election by a vote of 71 51 and was certified as the exclusive collective bargaining representative. Clair contends that four supervisors were improperly included in the bargaining unit and that this affected the outcome of the election. Clair is located in St. The unit was composed of approximately 131 production. Arguing that four setup specialists in the machine and finishing department should not be included in the unit because they were supervisors within the meaning of � 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Two of the specialists were called as witnesses: Bay by St. Found that the four setup specialists were not supervisors as defined in � 2(11) of the NLRA. Concluded that they were properly included in the voting unit. Arguing that the acting regional director had erred by finding that the challenged employees were not supervisors and by including them in the voting unit.
	OPINION/ORDER Fiedler was president of Local 274 of the United Paperworkers International Union (
	OPINION/ORDER Superior defends its refusal to bargain on the ground that the Union was improperly certified after a representation election marred by Board and Union misconduct. McAfee said that was not possible. Stating the company was not at fault. The employees were never told why the Board agent had failed to show up for the first election. 2 The rescheduled election was held on June 26. A certification order is not appealable. As we have frequently explained. The Board Agent's Conduct and the Rescheduled Election Superior objected that the Board agent's failure to attend the scheduled June 19 election
	WALDINGER CORP. V. NAT'L LABOR RELATIONS BD. (8/24/2001, NO. 00-14015) The only issue before us is whether Waldinger's actions were justified because of improper supervisory influence over employees who signed authorization cards for union representation. Because that decision was supported by substantial evidence. BACKGROUND
	98-9524 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. OKLAHOMA INSTALLATION COMPANY -- 07/10/2000 160(e).
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was J. With him on the brief were Leonard R. I. Background Harris Teeter is a retail grocery chain currently operating 150 stores and related facilities. The union was certified as the collec tive bargaining representative of a large bargaining unit of warehouse employees. Created the impression that the employees' union activities were under surveillance. The NLRB sought to have Harris Teeter held in contempt for violating the court's 1981 enforcement order. Several unfair labor practice charges filed against the company have been settled between 1986 and 1995. Harris Teeter now seeks to have this court vacate the 1986 consent decree.
	OPINION/ORDER With whom
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Cummings stated that the stewards were discharged for incompetence. That he was tired of this [expletive] that [he] and [his] dad were trying to pull on him.
	OPINION/ORDER Sass�'s claims are untimely. We will AFFIRM the decision of the ARB. 1 No. 04 3245 Sass� v. In 1983 Gregory Sass� was hired as an Assistant United States Attorney (
	OPINION/ORDER Vaughn Sr. is president of Gears and his children are corporate officers. He is president of Winters and Maverick. Madeline is the Secretary/Treasurer at Winters. Their products are distinct Gears produces transmissions and Winters produces automotive rear ends and each company has its own equipment and production lines. Gears is managed by Randy Lau. The only area in which Gears and Winters cooperate considerably is in hiring. A Winters employee will place a
	WALDINGER CORP. V. NAT'L LABOR RELATIONS BD. (8/24/2001, NO. 00-14015) The only issue before us is whether Waldinger's actions were justified because of improper supervisory influence over employees who signed authorization cards for union representation. Because that decision was supported by substantial evidence. BACKGROUND
	OPINION/ORDER
	NAT'L LABOR RELATIONS BD. V. GLADES HEALTH CARE CTR. (7/20/2001, NO. 00-12665) The Company cross petitions for review and to have set aside orders of the Board (1) certifying the Union as the collective bargaining representative for certain of the Company's employees and (2) finding that the Company engaged in an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the Union in violation of � 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Company claims that its refusal is justified and the Board should have set aside the election because (1) the Union engaged in campaign practices that are prohibited under
	NAT'L LABOR RELATIONS BD. V. GLADES HEALTH CARE CTR. (7/20/2001, NO. 00-12665) The Company cross petitions for review and to have set aside orders of the Board (1) certifying the Union as the collective bargaining representative for certain of the Company's employees and (2) finding that the Company engaged in an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the Union in violation of � 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Company claims that its refusal is justified and the Board should have set aside the election because (1) the Union engaged in campaign practices that are prohibited under
	OPINION/ORDER Nolt was bound to a successor agreement negotiated by the Roofing Contractors' Association (the
	99-5111 -- SHARP V. WEBCO INDUSTRIES, INC. -- 07/11/2000 160(j) (the
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for petitioner. Several employees were terminated or transferred in appar ent reprisal for their organizing activities. The Union won its representation election and was certified on Novem ber 3. (2) to reinstate the work rules that existed before the Union was designated as bargaining representative. The NLRB enforcement proceeding is moot. Optica's petition is frivolous. Refusal to bargain in good faith)
	OPINION/ORDER The injunction was sought pending the resolution by the NLRB of unfair labor practice charges against appellee Dorsey Trailers Inc. Which is the bargaining representative of the workers affected by the denial of injunctive relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Our review of the denial of a S 10(j) injunction is for abuse of discretion. We have held we may reverse the denial of a S 10(j) 2 injunction if the factual findings do not
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was G. Santucci Jr. were on the brief of amici curiae Council on Labor Law Equality and LPA. With him on the brief were Arthur F. The central issue in this case is whether. We hold that it does not because the manner by which a union may achieve recogni tion as the representative of employees outside the bargain ing unit is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. Pall's revocation of the agreement was not an unfair labor practice. The Union and Pall entered into an agreement that seemingly guaranteed the Union recognition at that facility in the event that unit work were ever to be performed there: The Employer agrees that in the event that it employs one (1) or more employees performing bargaining unit work at the Employer's facility in Port Washington. The Employer will extend recognition over such Employ ees to Local 365. After extension of recognition the Employer and Union will meet to discuss the terms and conditions of employment for such employees. In 1994 the Union became aware that Pall was moving to Port Washington certain laboratory equipment that had been operated by bargaining unit employees at Glen Cove.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Holding that Bachelder was not entitled to the Act's protection for her 1996 absences. To care for a family members who are ill. In an age when all the adults in many families are in the work force. Is also a plaintiff and appellant in this case. Even if the parties have not disputed standing. The standing question is irrelevant in this case because Penny Bachelder unquestionably has standing to sue. Is
	OPINION/ORDER Lines 5 6
	OPINION/ORDER Holding that Bachelder was not entitled to the Act's protection for her 1996 absences. To care for a family members who are ill. In an age when all the adults in many families are in the work force. Is also a plaintiff and appellant in this case. Even if the parties have not disputed standing. The standing question is irrelevant in this case because Penny Bachelder unquestionably has standing to sue. Is
	VISITING NURSE HEALTH SYS., INC. V. NLRB This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Visiting Nurse Health Sys. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0574n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND A number of facts are not in dispute. The hearing was conducted on September 23. The Acting Regional Director's recommendation that all other objections be After proof briefs were filed. The motion is DENIED. The motion is DENIED AS MOOT. As we have not found it necessary to consider those documents and are not remanding the case for a new hearing. 2 1 overruled. If an understanding is reached. We have jurisdiction over the Board's application for enforcement pursuant to 29 U.S.C. � 160(e). The Late Opening of the Polls APL's primary argument is that the election must be set aside based on the late opening of the polls. Late opening of the polls is not sufficient to set aside an election. If one of three additional factors are present. The Board may judge it appropriate to set aside an election where the polls did not open as scheduled: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1702a.html">CITISTEEL USA INC V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414366.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have been parties to labor agreements for over fifty years. GPC created the WEP only after learning covered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1365_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Grass was a driver at FedEx's Summit. That Grass was a slow worker and was sometimes suspected of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar97/96-8058.opa.html">VISITING NURSE HEALTH SYS., INC. V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Visiting Nurse Health Sys. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-5111a.htm">99-5111A -- SHARP V. WEBCO INDUSTRIES -- 07/11/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2075.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although its members were elected by the employees. The committee was treated as a department of Polaroid. Appellee Graney was elected Chairman of the committee in 1989. Appellee Tognarelli was elected Vice Chairman the same year. Appellant Scivally was elected to the committee as a representative in February 1992. The DOL made preliminary findings that the manner of electing the committee officers was improper. Announced the committee was dissolved. The DOL discontinued its investigation and dismissed Scivally's complaint on the ground there was no longer an entity falling within the Secretary's jurisdiction to investigate. II Scivally's RICO claims are predicated on her allegation that Polaroid and Booth acted illegally by paying </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200210/01-1242a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Kir sten Lea Doolittle. With him on the brief were Arthur F. The employer claimed that it had not authorized the negotiators and therefore was not bound by the agreement. It also argued that the union's failure to have obtained majority status excused the employ er's non compliance. It ruled that the allegedly defective language in that clause was severable and therefore did not justify the employer's refusal to abide by the agreement. Because there is little overlap between the issues relating to the negotiations and majority status on the one hand. Our review is governed by s 10(e) of the Act. Its reasonable interpreta tions of the Act are entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is in the business of painting and repainting bridges. Was president of the Association and served on its negotiating committee. Beam and Association Secretary Treasurer Ken Bowen told the union that they were representing seven named employers. Didn't indicate that Mollohan was withdrawing authority from the Association to bargain on its behalf. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002272.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 3 a comma is inserted between </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1443a.html">CHELSEA INDUSTRIES, INC., V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Scharg argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3798.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board's findings and therefore enforce its orders. 2 Nos. 01 3798. Those employees are represented by ten different unions and covered by seven different collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). National Steel installed a hidden camera in a manager's file cabinet in an attempt to discover who was using the office at night when the manager was not at work. Was using the office to make long distance telephone calls. In which the Board held that the use of hidden surveillance cameras by an employer is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. The letter also requested </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0351p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question that the parties have raised and briefed in this case is whether the plaintiffs' amended complaint � which. Asserts exclusively state law causes of action � is preempted in whole or in part by the Labor Management Relations Act. The district court held that two claims in plaintiffs' amended complaint were pre empted. It held that the other two claims were not pre empted by federal law. Arguing that all of the plaintiffs' claims are pre empted by federal law. All of the claims are untimely under the federal statute of limitations. Page 2 We affirm the district court insofar as it held that the two challenged claims in the plaintiffs' amended complaint were not completely preempted. We conclude that none of the claims in the plaintiffs' original complaint were completely preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act. That means that removal jurisdiction in federal court was lacking from the outset of this case. We further conclude that we are obligated to act on this jurisdictional defect in the earlier proceedings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-9540.htm">00-9540 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. KING SOOPERS, INC. -- 12/27/2001<BR></A><BR> 160(e). <p> King Soopers is a grocery retailer with over eighty stores in Colorado. The grocery clerks are represented by United Food and Commercial Workers. Foster that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C03/03-60947.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was the subject of an unfair labor practices complaint brought by the union representing the employees at one of its facilities. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Sanderson is a processor and distributor of poultry products with facilities throughout Mississippi and Texas. facilities is in Magnolia. Fletcher and Wicker 2 discussed the recent union election.1 Fletcher asked Wicker Wicker replied that he whether he was for or against the Union. was indifferent. Boyd was particularly concerned that Gill his thirteen traffic tickets would bar his reemployment. responded to Boyd's inquiry by discussing the problems Sanderson was having with the Union. Boyd made clear that he was only concerned with getting a job and was not interested in the Union. Putnam told Boyd that the problems were related to the Union and that Sanderson was trying to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/99-1178a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Linda R. The Union was certified on September 28. The employer's objections to the election were considered. Overruled by the Board's Regional Director in a written Report that was subsequently adopted by a three member panel of the Board. Argues that certain impermissible actions of the Board's agent who conducted the election and Union representatives who were present during the balloting pro cess so tainted the election procedure that the results should be set aside or. Telling employees that they had been sent by the Board to tell them when the polls were open. The Union agents even went so far as to walk into private medical examination rooms where patients were being examined. The manager who accompanied the Union agents filed a declaration saying that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-60947.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was the subject of an unfair labor practices complaint brought by the union representing the employees at one of its facilities. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Sanderson is a processor and distributor of poultry products with facilities throughout Mississippi and Texas. facilities is in Magnolia. Fletcher and Wicker 2 discussed the recent union election.1 Fletcher asked Wicker Wicker replied that he whether he was for or against the Union. was indifferent. Boyd was particularly concerned that Gill his thirteen traffic tickets would bar his reemployment. responded to Boyd's inquiry by discussing the problems Sanderson was having with the Union. Boyd made clear that he was only concerned with getting a job and was not interested in the Union. Putnam told Boyd that the problems were related to the Union and that Sanderson was trying to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct25/03-60947.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was the subject of an unfair labor practices complaint brought by the union representing the employees at one of its facilities. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Sanderson is a processor and distributor of poultry products with facilities throughout Mississippi and Texas. facilities is in Magnolia. Fletcher and Wicker 2 discussed the recent union election.1 Fletcher asked Wicker Wicker replied that he whether he was for or against the Union. was indifferent. Boyd was particularly concerned that Gill his thirteen traffic tickets would bar his reemployment. responded to Boyd's inquiry by discussing the problems Sanderson was having with the Union. Boyd made clear that he was only concerned with getting a job and was not interested in the Union. Putnam told Boyd that the problems were related to the Union and that Sanderson was trying to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0442n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition is DENIED. Was to take over production of neoprene at the Dupont facility in Louisville. Was committing unfair labor practices. The case was then sent to a compliance proceeding before the Board's Regional Director in order to more specifically enforce the prior Board order. The Union argued that its members were entitled to certain backpay and other monetary awards because of several unilateral changes DDE made to the terms of employment. Contended that these alleged unilateral changes were unlitigated unfair labor practice claims that the Union had failed to assert in the original Board proceeding. The Regional Director determined that a cease and desist order was the appropriate remedy and denied the Union's request for monetary relief. N.L.R.B. unilateral change in established terms and conditions of employment </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/04-5057a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0213p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court dismissed Plaintiff's action on the ground that Plaintiff was not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-1088a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-1038a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1917p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we find that the LPN Charge Nurses are 1. Standard nomenclature for nurses is LPN. We will grant Passavant's Petition For Review. I. Passavant is a continuing care retirement community. The facility is under the overall supervision of an Executive Director. Directly below the Executive Director in Passavant's hierarchy is the Director of Clinical Services. Under the House Supervisors are the Head Nurses. Passavant's Nurses Aides and Resident Assistants are already governed by a collective bargaining agreement. It is worth noting that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200402/03-1031a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/012267.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are whether sufficient evidence supported: (1) the Board's finding that anti union animus contributed to FES's decision not to hire the union applicants. That the disparity between the union applicants' previous wages and the lower wages offered by FES would have led FES to reject the union applicants regardless of the alleged animus. We conclude that the Board's findings on these points are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Hence we will deny FES's 2 petition for review and grant the Board's cross petition for enforcement. I. FES is a division of Thermo Power Corporation and has an office and manufacturing facility in York. Was quoted in a local newspaper as saying that FES was having trouble finding workers. FES might have to build a new plant out of state. Roche how we have a common interest being that he needs journeymen pipefitters and welders and we have that type of individual available for employment. We spoke shortly and he said he was not interested in the union or what the union could do for him or his company. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/963927P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A petition requesting a union representation election was filed with the board by the union in October 1995. A secret ballot election was held on November 30. With one void ballot and two challenged ballots that would not have affected the outcome of the election. The board scheduled a representation proceeding at which Deffenbaugh's challenges to the election were considered. There was no evidence that the union made any of the statements or started the rumors. There was no evidence of any physical threats or vandalism in the pre election period or that the INS ever visited the company before the election. Testified that the driver of a truck in which he had been riding over a month before the election had told him about the benefits of the union and the possibility that the INS might arrive at the company if the union were to lose the election. Who was ineligible to vote. Who was an eligible voter. Was told by an unidentified black driver sometime in October that if the union lost. A few employees said that there were many discussions about the rumors among the Hispanic employees and that they participated in some of the discussions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1366a.html">WILLAMETTE INDUST V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Fickle argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0007p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The facts are well documented in the administrative law judge's report. Which was adopted and incorporated in the Board's order. Are summarized as follows. Ishikawa's administrative offices are located in Farmington Hills. Which were chief among the employees' complaints. Examples of Ishikawa's repeated attempts to dissuade union supporters are well preserved in the record. Supervisor Dave Kendrick convinced employees to surveil the union activities that were occurring and promised them compensation in return. The supervisors began an unprecedented practice of soliciting the employees' complaints and after discovering that the employees' chief complaint was the management. President Udagawa reminded the employees that their complaints were taken care of and there was no reason for a union. A stipulated election was held on January 21. A consolidated complaint alleging various violations of the National Labor Relations Act was filed on October 30. The complaint specifically alleged that Ishikawa reduced its annual Christmas bonus from fifteen cents per hour worked in a forty hour work week to thirteen cents per hour worked in a forty hour work week and that the reduction was based upon and in retaliation for the employees' organization attempt. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200204/00-1443a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the briefs were Steven J. With her on the brief were Arthur F. With him on the brief was Laurence Gold. For a year after a union is certified as the bargaining repre sentative of its employees. We uphold the Board's new policy because it is both rational and consistent with the National Labor Relations Act. From which it followed that its subsequent unilateral wage increase was unlawful as well. A petition signed by a majority is such evidence. Is whether the Board reasonably could hold. We defer to the Board's interpretation of the Act if it is reasonable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200603/04-1440a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Alan G. With him on the brief 2 were Arthur F. Acting General Counsel at the time the brief was filed. Acting Associate General Counsel at the time the brief was filed. Mangano was on the brief for intervenor. Most notably the employees were told that they were eligible for 1 See. Under the program supposedly approved by the Labor Department once that threshold was passed. The union was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/02-1334a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0101n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Fairfield Ford is an automobile dealership located in Fairfield. The warranty clerk monitors the mechanics' work and codes the required forms to ensure that the services are billed correctly. The Regional Director determined that the mechanics were an appropriate unit for collective bargaining and directed the union to hold a representation hearing among these employees. While Fairfield's appeal was pending. Two of these witnesses were Fairfield supervisors. The third witness was Carter himself. Carter acted as though he was nervous. 491 (1947) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1239a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Elliot Jay Mandel. With her on the brief were Leonard R. For which he was promptly fired. (4) whether the outburst was. The Board's analysis of the third factor in this case was arbitrary and capricious in that it departed from its own precedent and that of this court. Inc. is a general contractor specializing in the construction of highways and utilities. Was assigned to the night shift in the second week of September 1996. Yonta's immediate supervisor at the time was Felix Petrillo. Whose father was the president of the Company. Under the collective bargaining agreement then in place Yonta was entitled to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2402.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Roitman & Coleman were on brief. P.C. was on brief. Filed grievances against eight Boston Harbor Project employers on behalf of certain truck drivers on the project who own and drive their own trucks (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/01-9532.htm">01-9532 -- WEBCO INDUSTRIES INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 12/16/2003<BR></A><BR> We grant the Board's cross application for enforcement. <p> The issues presented are: (1) whether substantial evidence supports the findings of the alleged violations. (2) whether Bryan O'Connell was a supervisor and therefore barred from relief under the Act. (3) whether Eric Martin is barred from relief because he signed a severance agreement releasing Webco from claims under the Act. (4) whether relief for Bryan O'Connell and Charlie Williams is time barred under </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1959.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for respondent. While the bargaining was in progress. Inasmuch as . . . the latter is distributing the rice which our members used to process . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-3006.html">BOLTON V. MSPB<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200104/00-1325a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Leonard R. Jr. was on the brief for intervenors Fidel Perez. The question before us is whether the company's voluntary offer of reinstatement to four of the employees tolled their right to backpay. Because the offer was not firm. I Halle Enterprises is in the business of building homes and managing apartment complexes. Ellis told the employ ees that they could have their jobs back if they filled out new applications. They were met by Ellis. They had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1325a.html">HALLE ENTERPRISES V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> With her on the <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> brief were Leonard R. Jr. was on the brief for intervenors Fidel Perez. Working conditions.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/datefile/datefile.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> End page heading. > <div align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1481a.html">ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> With </P> <P>him on the briefs was Bradford K. With her on the brief was </P> <P>Frederick C. The Union had been certified </P> <P>after an election in which 23 votes were cast for the Union. Challenges to 4 ballots were sustained. Associat </P> <P>ed Milk argues that the certification of the election was </P> <P>invalid. Because challenges to three of the ballots should have </P> <P>been rejected. Associated Milk seeks to have this court </P> <P>accept the votes of the challenged employees. Were not a part of the stipulated bargaining unit. </P> <P>Prior to the election. Iowa facility. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-1481a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Bradford K. With her on the brief was Frederick C. The Union had been certified after an election in which 23 votes were cast for the Union. Challenges to 4 ballots were sustained. Associat ed Milk argues that the certification of the election was invalid. Because challenges to three of the ballots should have been rejected. Associated Milk seeks to have this court accept the votes of the challenged employees. Were not a part of the stipulated bargaining unit. The Board's Regional Director determined that the stipula tion is unambiguous. He then went on to treat it as if it were ambiguous by conducting an ex parte </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/013858o.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There are limits to this constitutional freedom. To ensure that non members are assessed only for fairshare fees properly chargeable to them. This explanation of the basis for the fee is often referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1830p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PA 19102 Attorney for Appellant * Judge Lewis heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion due to illness. The action was filed pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Seeking an injunction and an order vacating and/or staying enforcement of an arbitrator's award finding that Cofab was the alter ego and successor of DA Clothing Co. We must decide whether we have jurisdiction over the district court's order granting a stay. Was a party to a Collective Bargaining Agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/013858ap.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There are limits to this constitutional freedom. To ensure that non members are assessed only for fairshare fees properly chargeable to them. This explanation of the basis for the fee is often referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/013858p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There are limits to this constitutional freedom. To ensure that non members are assessed only for fairshare fees properly chargeable to them. This explanation of the basis for the fee is often referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199811/98-1054a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Linda Sher. Since although it is close we find substantial evidence supporting the Board's determina tion. I. Eugene Matzan is an electrician in Cadbury's food process ing plant in Williamson. Fischette informed Matzan that union business was not permitted on company time (despite Matzan's insistence that his union activity occurred during breaks). Dennis told Matzan that she had not received an expected bonus and was planning to ask Larry Graffius. That the company should have fired Dennis (whom Graffius identified with an unflattering expletive) when it had the chance to do so. The crux of the dispute is whether Graffius said anything at all to DeGroote about firing Dennis. That Matzan's story was most likely false and that the potential damage to DeGroote. The human resources department was sufficiently serious to warrant suspension without prior warn ing. Matzan was suspended for three days.1 Matzan's termination arose out of his attempt to attend an arbitration hearing of a co worker. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/03-6112.htm">03-6112 -- FELIX V. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. -- 10/26/2004<BR></A><BR> Which was denied by the district court on the basis of ERISA complete preemption. We conclude that Plaintiffs' state law fraud claims are not completely preempted by ERISA. Lucent entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/99-15054.man.html">NAT'L LABOR RELATIONS BD. V. LAMPI LLC (1/30/2001, NO. 99-15054)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-51264.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants' suit was Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Appellant Celestino was an employee of the Agency. Relations between Appellants and the Agency were covered by the Master Labor Agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun29/03-51264.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants' suit was Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Appellant Celestino was an employee of the Agency. Relations between Appellants and the Agency were covered by the Master Labor Agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-15054.man.html">NAT'L LABOR RELATIONS BD. V. LAMPI LLC (1/30/2001, NO. 99-15054)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/003332P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Board ordered that King Soopers abide the terms of its existing collective bargaining agreements with the Unions and to make the employees whole for any losses they may have suffered from Kings Soopers' failure to apply the collective bargaining agreement to Store #86. I. The following findings of fact by the Board are largely undisputed by the parties and are supported by the substantial weight of the evidence. Many of the stores are unionized. Both Unions have had longstanding bargaining relationships in multi store bargaining units covering all company stores located within the Denver metropolitan area. Which was located in a facility at 120th Avenue in Broomfield. Was established in 1987. It was King Soopers' first and only store in Broomfield. Shortly after the store was established. With a recognition provision that specified that the Union was the representative for all grocery and delicatessen employees at </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1705.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rafael Cueves Kuinlam with whom Cuevas Kuinlam & Bermudez was on brief for Puerto Rico Marine Management. The major issue on this appeal is whether 9(b)(3) of the Labor Management Relations Act which prohibits the N.L.R.B. from certifying a bargaining unit including both guards and non guards entitles an employer to breach its voluntary collective bargaining agreement with such a unit. There are three other issues: 1) whether PRMMI and Local 1575 could exclude the appellees from the collective bargaining agreement. 3) whether pre judgment interest was properly awarded and computed. The appellees are twenty eight gatemen/guards1 who were employed by PRMMI since the beginning of its operation as administrator of the Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority in 1974. PRMMI also employed guards who were not affiliated with Local 1575 at its Isla Grande facilities and subcontracted guard services to Wackenhut Corporation at both its Mayaguez and Ponce facilities. This reference is understandable given the dualistic nature of the employment performed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1631.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</U> were on brief for petitioner/cross respondent.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/05-1004a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was E. With her on the brief were Ronald Meisburg. With him on the briefs were Julia M. Smithfield was exceptionally hostile to union organizing activities at the Tar Heel plant. Three of Smithfield's former lawyers have intervened in support of Smithfield's petition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200111/00-1422a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter A. With her on the brief were Arthur F. We have repeatedly held that the Board's decision to hold another election is not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2236.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Case & Watson was on brief for Local 14 United Paperworkers International Union. Were on brief for National Labor Relations Board. Klein & Zelman were on brief for International Paper Company. Approximately 1200 members of the Union are among the employees at the Jay facility. The walkout was marked by periodic outbreaks of violence. The Union's discrimination challenge was limited to the discharge of the following five strikers: Lawrence Bilodeau. The ALJ's finding was predicated on his determination that non striker Barclay. Standard of Review Standard of Review This court must enforce the Board's order if its findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole and if it correctly applied the law. We are compelled to review the Board's order with considerable deference and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2048.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brown & Joy was on brief for petitioner. National Labor Relations Board were on brief for respondent. This is a petition by National Surface Cleaning. National's position is that (1) substantial evidence does not support the Board's finding as to Yeppes because he was let go prior to its learning of the charge. (3) ignored evidence indicating National's actions were in no way based upon the charge. Background National is engaged in asbestos removal at various sites in and around New York. These workers are hired on a project by project basis. As of February 1992 the employees in the present case were all working at 1411 Broadway under project manager Pablo Ortega. Some of those laid off believed they were not transferred because National intended to complete the Grace job with non union workers. There was some dispute as to whether Yeppes was laid off at this time or sometime prior to the others. 2. He claimed to have seen Yeppes' name on a complaint but admitted he had not seen the others' names. He then told them they were no longer needed at the Grace building but might be able to find work at 100 Wall Street or 1411 Broadway. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1452a.html">GA ST CHPTR ASSN V. FLRA<BR></A><BR> With her on the <p> brief were <i>David M. Unless the failure or neglect <p> to urge the objection is excused because of extraordinary <p> circumstances. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/03-1127a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1777p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The critical issue before this Court is whether petitioner Dorsey Trailers. This Court will grant the petition for review but will enforce the Board's Decision and Order in part. Pennsylvania plant.2 The United Auto Worker's International and its Local 1868 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/033154P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Project Agreement included the following clause in section 3.03: The Collective Bargaining Agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/001684P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Upholding the Board's decision that KSDK's producers and assignment editors were not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. We granted the petition for rehearing 2 and vacated the panel's judgment and opinion.1 Because we conclude that the Board employed an improper legal standard in finding that the producers were not statutory supervisors. I. The producers have the overall responsibility for putting together a newscast from planning to air. The producer ultimately decides which stories will be covered and creates a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6112.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was denied by the district court on the basis of ERISA complete preemption. We conclude that Plaintiffs' state law fraud claims are not completely <hr> preempted by ERISA. Lucent entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul26/03-60880.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees because they have given testimony under the National Labor Relations Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-60880.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees because they have given testimony under the National Labor Relations Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0591n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The White Pigeon foundry was analyzed and determined to be too small to stand alone. The molds and dies were loaded onto trucks for shipment to Sterling's facility in Ontario. The nature of Sterling's relationship with the facility in California is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200010372.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This decision is rendered by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. � 46(d). ** * Petitioner National Labor Relations Board (the Board) seeks enforcement of its order against Respondent Gimrock Construction. (3) since the Board ordered the strikers' reinstatement </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200010372.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (3) since the Board ordered the strikers' reinstatement </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/973097P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The parties have stipulated that four of the RNs are supervisors The HONORABLE RICHARD W. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/97-1388a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Frank W. With him on the brief was Shari Polur. Kirsch were on the brief for intervenor National Border Patrol Council. Including the right of exclusive representa tives to request from agencies information that is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199908/98-1452a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were David M. Unless the failure or neglect to urge the objection is excused because of extraordinary circumstances. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/11/001684P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Board found that the assignment editors and producers who work at the station are entitled to the protection of the National Labor Relations Act because they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/95-6630.opa.html">FED. LABOR RELATIONS AUTH. V. NASA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Fed. Whether the Federal Labor Relations Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/95-6630.opa.html">FED. LABOR RELATIONS AUTH. V. NASA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Fed. Whether the Federal Labor Relations Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1541a.html">SCEPTER, INC., V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Ingham argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/014109u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will deny review of the Board's decision and grant its enforcement applications. Jacee is an electric service contractor located in Pennsylvania whose president. Who have worked for the company since 1996. One or more electricians or helpers have worked for it for an extended period of time. They spoke to Corelli on the telephone who told them that there was no electrical work for them to do. Corelli told Hearon that no work was available but that he should call back the next day. He asked Corelli if he would have a helper to assist him and Corelli told him that he would not. Corelli told Waid that unions were no good for employees like him because they would make him start from the bottom again. Corelli asked Waid if the letter was accurate. When Waid said that it was. There were three challenged ballots and Jacee does not dispute that two of them should not be counted. The last ballot is Hearon's vote which Jacee argues should not be counted. Hearon's vote is determinative as to union representation. The ALJ concluded that union activity was a substantial factor in Jacee's decision to layoff Hearon. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/982884P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They concede that the cross appeal will be moot if this court affirms the district court's dismissal and summary judgment decisions. The cross appeal is therefore moot. The specific allegations pertinent to our discussion are found in paragraphs 9 through 32 of the First Amended Complaint. Sheet Metal Workers Local 36 is a member of the St. The Specification stated that all subcontractors were covered by the terms and conditions of the General Contract. One of the companies who submitted a bid for the School Project was Wachter. K.C.'s mechanical subcontracting bid was the lowest responsible mechanical subcontractor bid submitted to Wachter for the School Project. Inc.) were not signatory to an AFL CIO collective bargaining agreement. The bids for the School Project were publicly opened and read aloud on the morning of June 24. Wachter was the low bidder. When Wachter learned that it was the low bidder. The School Board was scheduled to hold a meeting at which it was to vote on the award of the contract for the School Project. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200202/00-1541a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was James P. With her on the briefs were Arthur F. Rosenfeld was on the brief for amicus curiae International Association of Bridge. Because the Order is supported by substantial evidence in the record. I. Background Our review of the facts is based on the Board's findings when they are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Scepter is an aluminum recycling company. There is no other evidence. Who was person ally involved in the bargaining process. Scepter was required to demonstrate that it had a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-9522.htm">00-9522 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. RELIABLE ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. -- 06/15/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> The National Labor Relations Board has filed an application for enforcement of its order holding that respondents Reliable Electric Construction Company. Inc.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0798p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Noaker (whose name is misspelled in some pleadings as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0295p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appeal was consolidated with a National Labor Relations Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051568np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will deny the petition for review and grant enforcement. The Union was certified 2 as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the automotive technicians at Lancaster in October 2002. Suffice it to say that they were characterized by repeated requests by the Union for dates for meetings. Because their work was integral to Lancaster's operations and directly impacted its revenues. General manager) refused to meet on the weekends and restricted the evenings that each was willing to be at the bargaining table. Lancaster conceded that if its failure to meet with the Union at reasonable times was unlawful. Then the other three challenged actions were unlawful as well. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/023515P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the question whether an employer's erroneous belief that an employee is engaged in protected concerted activity can be the basis of a � 8(a)(1) violation. Concluding that the Board's consistent resolution of this issue is a permissible interpretation of the statute. Atkisson met with general manager Riley and told her </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/97-1689a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was William C. With him on the brief were Frederick L. Mallison were on the brief for intervenors Shipwrights. Or conveying the impression that it is using. Although the lot is on NASSCO's property. NASSCO and the unions have a history of labor disputes. Their strategy was to put pressure on the Company while the employees remained on the job. Installation at the second was halted after the unions again complained. The microphone was never operational. The ALJ found that the videotaping at Gate 6 violated s 8(a)(1) because NASSCO had not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200212/01-1401a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Jerome A. With her on the brief were Arthur F. Sigmond was on the brief for intervenor in support of respondent. The Board found that CCI and the Union were signatories to a collective bargaining agreement covering all CCI jobsites within the jurisdiction of the Union. The Board held that CCI was obliged to furnish the information sought by the Union. Because it was relevant to unit employees represented by Local 98. The Board rejected CCI's claim that the parties' contract was a single project agreement limited to work done by CCI employees at the Philadelphia airport. Was awarded a subcontract by Lombardo and Lipe. Lombardo and Lipe was a signatory to the Union's area collective bargaining agreement. One copy was a one page document. The other copy was attached to the Commercial Agreement as a signature page. Had heard that CCI was hiring non union workers. A complaint was issued. Local 98 represent ed all CCI employees who were working at jobsites within Local 98's geographical jurisdiction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/97-1026a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the brief. III was on the brief. Circuit Judge: The parties are before the court for the third time as a result of a labor dispute that began over sixteen years ago. This litigation has concerned only a preliminary procedural issue: whether the General Counsel's attempt to reinstate the dismissed charges was valid under the Board's precedent. It is settled that the evidence belatedly discovered by the General Counsel was material. The issue now is whether Brown & Sharpe fraudulently concealed that evidence. Brown & Sharpe insisted that its positions on two issues </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/06-1160a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Ronald E. We deny the petition and uphold the Board's order because it is supported by substantial evidence and is consistent with the Board's own precedent. The flyers were mailed in envelopes with a Union logo printed beside the return address. The word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/97-5587.man.html">DUNN V. AIR LINE PILOTS ASS'N (10/25/1999, NO. 97-5587)<BR></A><BR> The court held on summary judgment that the description of the pilots as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3476.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that it violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/97-5587.man.html">DUNN V. AIR LINE PILOTS ASS'N (10/25/1999, NO. 97-5587)<BR></A><BR> The court held on summary judgment that the description of the pilots as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/00-1135a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Angel MuNoz Noya. With him on the brief were Leonard R. That persons employed as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0327n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Union was certified following an election in which all seven eligible employees voted. Because it contended that an employee who voted in the election had quit his job with Trans Tech prior to voting and was ineligible to vote. The Board concluded that the employee was eligible to vote and issued an order requiring Trans Tech to bargain with the certified union. * The Honorable Adrian G. We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in deciding that the challenged employee was entitled to vote and that therefore the election was valid. The only employees who were eligible to vote in the election. The sole issue is whether Frank Haneline. Was ineligible to vote. The election was held on March 29. Haneline was not scheduled to and did not work that day. Who was sitting in his truck near the entrance to the building in which the election was conducted. Haneline told Clark that he had gotten a position with another company and was quitting his job with Trans Tech. Clark replied that no notice was required and that Haneline could </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982464.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioners also contest the Board's decision that the hiring employee was a statutory supervisor for whose conduct they were responsible. I. Petitioners Southeast Crescent Shipping Company and Southeast Crescent Terminal Company (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr95/94-4067.opa.html">BECHTEL CONSTR. V. SECRETARY OF LABOR<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bechtel Constr. v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the Secretary of Labor's determination that petitioner violated the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act. Petitioner Bechtel Construction Company (Bechtel) claims that the Secretary of Labor's finding that Bechtel discharged one of its employees for engaging in whistleblower activities is not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner further claims that the employee's conduct was not protected activity as a matter of law.<p> Our review of the record convinces us that the Secretary should be affirmed.<p> I.<p> <p> Bechtel is a contractor at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Facility at Florida City. Turkey Point is owned and operated by the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL). Which is licensed to operate the facility by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The facility is divided into two areas. The radiation control area and the non radiation area.<p> Approximately every 18 months the nuclear units at Turkey Point are shut down for refueling. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033176p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Facts As the material facts are generally not in dispute. The facts presented below are taken in large part verbatim from the District Court's opinion in this case. Additional facts are incorporated from the parties' submissions and appendices. American agreed to hire almost all of TWA's unionized employees provided that certain labor protective provisions in their various contracts were eliminated. Was eliminated. TWA's pilots were represented by DefendantAppellee ALPA through its TWA Master OPINION OF THE COURT VAN ANTWERPEN. Plaintiffs Appellants (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-9520.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction to review. While the security officers are in charge of policing the slot area. Each type of employee receives tips from customers and are required by casino policy to share these tips. The manner for sharing tips between slot technicians and security officers is the foundation of the dispute leading to this proceeding. All tips were pooled with half the tips going to slot technicians and the other half to security officers. A slot technician's share of the tip pool was smaller than a security officer's share. Tips were not first divided between the different groups of employees. One technician was fired and two others were suspended. The ALJ held that the employees who were (1) In its reply brief. See 29 U.S.C. 157 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/03-1322a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1388a.html">PENNSYLVANIA TRANSFORMER TECHNOLOGY, INC., V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Abramowich and Brian Seth Roman were on brief for the petitioner. <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr95/94-4067.opa.html">BECHTEL CONSTR. V. SECRETARY OF LABOR<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bechtel Constr. v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the Secretary of Labor's determination that petitioner violated the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act. Petitioner Bechtel Construction Company (Bechtel) claims that the Secretary of Labor's finding that Bechtel discharged one of its employees for engaging in whistleblower activities is not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner further claims that the employee's conduct was not protected activity as a matter of law.<p> Our review of the record convinces us that the Secretary should be affirmed.<p> I.<p> <p> Bechtel is a contractor at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Facility at Florida City. Turkey Point is owned and operated by the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL). Which is licensed to operate the facility by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The facility is divided into two areas. The radiation control area and the non radiation area.<p> Approximately every 18 months the nuclear units at Turkey Point are shut down for refueling. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1388a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Abramowich and Brian Seth Roman were on brief for the petitioner. Were on brief. PTTI main tains that the Board erred in determining that it was a successor to Cooper Industries. Its employees were represented by different locals of the Union in three separate collective bargaining units. None was found and on November 22. Applicants for employment were interviewed by PTTI personnel but hired by Bedway. At which time they were eligible to become permanent employees of PTTI. Were former Cooper employees. 54 were former Cooper employees. Which was held on July 7. A majority of whom were former Cooper employees. That PTTI was a successor employer under the Act. Only 62 of whom were former Cooper employees and that former members of the Cooper production and maintenance unit became a minority of PTTI's production workers as of October 29. The Board held that (1) PTTI was a successor to Cooper. Analysis A new employer is a successor to a former employer if there is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/00-1544a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lindsay were on brief. Were on brief. Crucial to the Board's holding was its finding that CA was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-5124.htm">03-5124 -- MILLSAP V. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP. -- 05/21/2004<BR></A><BR> Any other damages based upon backpay) are available as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1366a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter A. With him on the brief were Leonard R. With him on the brief were Laurence Gold and William R. Circuit Judge: The National Labor Relations Board determined that the refusal of Willamette Industries to negotiate with the Graphic Communications Union Local 17 M after the Union lost a decertification election was an unfair labor practice (ULP). Because the Board's decision is inconsistent with the rule the Board purported to apply. Only some of which are unionized. Before the Board hearing officer is sued his report Willamette announced that it would no longer negotiate with the Union because the outcome of the decerti fication election gave it a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200512/04-1388a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were John H. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Senior Circuit Judge: The National Labor Relations Board and this court have a fundamental and long running disagreement as to the appropriate approach with which to determine whether an employer has violated section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act when it refuses to bargain with its union over a subject allegedly contained in a collective bargaining agreement. Enloe and the Union are parties to a collective bargaining agreement that runs from January 2002 to January 2006. On call staffing was entirely voluntary. There is no disagreement between the Board and Enloe that the agreement authorized the adoption of the mandatory on call policy. The charge nurses alerted Eddlemon that some nurses were expressing negative attitudes and were complaining at the nurses' station. Even before Enloe's May 7 response � alleging Charge nurses are responsible for scheduling. Enloe was required to bargain with the Union regarding the effects of that policy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0326n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These cases are here on a petition for review and a cross application for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board. The question before us is whether substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that floor nurses employed at the petitioner's nursing home are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4217_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-1483.htm">02-1483 -- RODRIGUEZ V. WHITING FARMS INC. -- 02/10/2004<BR></A><BR> Whiting Farms argues it is exempt from paying Rodriguez and Gomez overtime under the FLSA agricultural exemption. Rodriguez and Gomez filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether they performed nonagricultural jobs and thus were entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. The district court determined Rodriguez and Gomez were engaged in agricultural work and therefore were not entitled to overtime under the agricultural exemption. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-5005a.htm">00-5005A -- SHARP V. WEBCO INDUSTRIES INC. -- 07/18/2001<BR></A><BR> Is granted. A copy of the published opinion is attached to this order. <p> ENTERED FOR THE COURT <p> PATRICK FISHER. Senior Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60938.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0142p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ohio is the milieu for this appeal. At issue is a significant question of whether federal courts have the ability to hear claims filed pursuant to � 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0787n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Problem reports are part of the company's plant wide procedure for documenting issues including non compliance with safety regulations and ensuring that they are resolved. He also confessed that his lack of experience in the field had led to difficulty in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2F41AE5B91D2DCAC88256AEE00594667/$file/9916674.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also vacate the dismissal of the second amended complaint because the district court erroneously determined that Casumpang was required to exhaust union hearing procedures before filing his Title I claim in the district court. Casumpang was employed full time as an elected business agent of Local 142 of the ILWU. � 1 of the Local's constitution.1 The matter was set for trial on April 16. The parties stipulated as follows: Casumpang was an elected full time official on the Local's payroll. Casumpang was ordered to cease working as an electrical contractor and to seek prior authorization before engaging in any further business as an electrical contractor. His request was denied on June 4. 29 U.S.C. � 481(b).2 Casumpang was nominated for the position of Maui Division Director on September 8. His opponent was Rogelio </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0402p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Factual background Gettings was hired by the Fund as a secretary/clerk in 1978. Five other people were employed in the Fund's office: three clerks. Gettings and the three other clerks were members of the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU). Compensation for the field auditor and the fund administrator was set by the Fund's Board of Trustees. Gettings claims that Mickshaw was incompetent and unqualified for this position. Because Mickshaw was purportedly unable to fulfill his duties as the field auditor. Gettings complains that she and Mickshaw were doing the same kind of work. That Mickshaw was being paid $35. 000 more per year than she was by virtue of his formally holding the position of field auditor. Alleging that the Fund was discriminating against her because of her gender. The OPEIU union steward were subsequently taken by an assistant state attorney general on behalf of the OCRC. Gettings admitted that there were significant differences between the duties of a field auditor and the duties of a clerk. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2595F1BC823D2A5488256E5A00707D1D/$file/9916674.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also vacate the dismissal of the second amended complaint because the district court erroneously determined that Casumpang was required to exhaust union hearing procedures before filing his Title I claim in the district court. Casumpang was employed full time as an elected business agent of Local 142 of the ILWU. � 1 of the Local's constitution.1 The matter was set for trial on April 16. The parties stipulated as follows: Casumpang was an elected full time official on the Local's payroll. Casumpang was ordered to cease working as an electrical contractor and to seek prior authorization before engaging in any further business as an electrical contractor. His request was denied on June 4. 29 U.S.C. � 481(b).2 Casumpang was nominated for the position of Maui Division Director on September 8. His opponent was Rogelio </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1427a.html">TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE SERVICES, L.L.C V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Kaplan argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199911/98-1554a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Frank Swain. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. Macey was on the brief for intervenor. The company is engaged in the wholesale distribution and sale of books and reference materials. The leaflet read: WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE? Macmillan will be free to proceed ahead with the announced wage increases for the Lebanon move. We may quickly dispatch the company's argument that the first election was premature because of the impending trans fer to the Customer Center. Nothing more is needed to sustain the Board's order insofar as it rested on the results of the second election. The remaining question is whether the Board. The issue here arose in the context of a representation election and the consequence of the leaflet was not an unfair labor practice charge. The Board admitted at oral argument that its treatment of employer communications at the election stage is indistinguishable from how it decides if an employer's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-1414a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. We also directed the FLRA to compare Power to another PBGC employee whose transgressions were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/021249P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were hired by Watkins Motor Lines. David returned to the terminal and advised the dispatcher that the tractor was overweight. Watkins informed the Williamses that they were terminated from employment because they had refused an assigned load. Was therefore preempted. Watkins responded by arguing the additional claim was inextricably intertwined with the original claim for wrongful discharge. Therefore also was pre empted by the NLRA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1284a.html">CAN AMER OIL CO V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1554a.html">MACMILLAN PUBLISHING V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> With </P> <P>him on the briefs was Frank Swain.</P> <P> . With him on the </P> <P>brief were Linda Sher. Macey was on the brief for intervenor.</P> <P> Before: Silberman. Indus </P> <P>trial and Textile Employees intervened.</P> <P> The company is engaged in the wholesale distribution and </P> <P>sale of books and reference materials. The leaflet read:</P> <P> WHAT DO YOU HAVE </P> <P> TO LOSE?</P> <P> HOW ABOUT:</P> <P> </P> <P> $2. Macmillan will be free to proceed ahead with the</P> <P>announced wage increases for the Lebanon move.</P> <P> </P> <P> With a union. (One of </P> <P>the union's objections dealt with the timing of the wage </P> <P>increase.)</P> <P> We may quickly dispatch the company's argument that the </P> <P>first election was premature because of the impending trans </P> <P>fer to the Customer Center. Nothing more is </P> <P>needed to sustain the Board's order insofar as it rested on the </P> <P>results of the second election. 1397 98 (11th Cir. 1993).</P> <P> The remaining question is whether the Board. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60319.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The election The was never held because the USW filed charges with the NLRB. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. This court will sustain the Board's application of legal interpretation to facts if it is supported by substantial evidence based upon the record considered as a whole. Although Albis urges that this rule is outdated. The failure to call an available witness likely to have knowledge about a particular matter gives rise to an inference that such testimony would be adverse to the party's position and consistent with the opposing party. We cannot say that the conclusion of the ALJ is unsupported by substantial evidence. Both unlawful because they were responses to what the General Counsel considered and the Board found to be protected activities. 3 The ALJ concluded that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1569.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Corcoran with whom Gleeson & Corcoran was on brief for appellee. The issue at the core of the dispute is whether Local 600M had properly assumed the mantle of two smaller. The Demise of Locals 109C and 139B The relevant facts are undisputed. Sullivan Brothers is a commercial printing concern located in Lowell. Local 109C was the larger of the two locals. Approximately ten of whom were employed by Sullivan Brothers. Were the only local officers or directors remaining in office. Were transferred to Local 600M with no 1. That document is then put to a secret ballot vote and. A new charter is issued to the new entity. Are accepted by. There was still no leadership. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/032471P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is the proper way to obtain judicial review of the underlying order certifying the IAM. When the parties have agreed to an appropriate bargaining unit in an election agreement. The Board will approve that agreement unless it determines that the bargaining unit contravenes the National Labor Relations Act or Board policy. It is not enough to show that. The Board would have defined the appropriate bargaining unit differently. The Regional Director concluded there was no showing of unusual circumstances because. The appropriateness of that unit is not defeated because the [IAM] seeks [to represent] another unit of [MEMC's] employees. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0236p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As the name is used in this case. Is a labor organization within the meaning of section 152(5) of the National Labor Relations Act. 29 U.S.C. � 152(5). An administrative law judge found that because Hill and Blake were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/99-1440a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Lloyd Benton Miller. With her on the brief were Leonard R. The Board properly rejected the employer's claim to be exempt pursuant to s 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) on the ground that it is an Indian tribe acting in a governmental capacity. To consider the employer's argument that it is entitled to exemption under s 2(2) because the Indian Self Determination Act (ISDA) authorizes it to act as an arm of. Yukon is controlled by a board of directors elected by the tribal councils of the 58 tribes in the region. Yukon argued that it qualified for exemption under s 2(2) both as a political subdivision (because it is an Indian tribe acting in a governmental capacity) and as an arm of the United States (because it operates a federal hospital pursuant to the ISDA). Analysis Yukon advances two arguments for the proposition that its hospital is not subject to the NLRA. Yukon argues that it qualifies under s 2(2) as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/01-12884.opn.html">ASSOCIATED RUBBER CO. V. NLRB(7/5/2002, NO. 01-12884)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P><STRONG> </STRONG>An employee of Associated Rubber Company was threatened and subjected to greater risk of physical injury on the job because of his opposition to the union. News of that happening was disseminated among a number of employees. The issue is whether that misconduct invalidates the results of the close vote in favor of the union in the certification election which occurred shortly thereafter. In a split decision <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-12884.opn.html">ASSOCIATED RUBBER CO. V. NLRB(7/5/2002, NO. 01-12884)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P><STRONG> </STRONG>An employee of Associated Rubber Company was threatened and subjected to greater risk of physical injury on the job because of his opposition to the union. News of that happening was disseminated among a number of employees. The issue is whether that misconduct invalidates the results of the close vote in favor of the union in the certification election which occurred shortly thereafter. In a split decision <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200311/02-1260a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1006.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cummings & Lockwood were on brief for petitioner. Maskele and Moriarty were on brief for respondent. The only issue before this Court is whether the Board had substantial record evidence to conclude that certain of the Company's employees. Are neither </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept96/95-4069.wpd.html">YOUNG V. UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS - LABOR EMPLOY. AND TRAINING CORP.<BR></A><BR> Defendant appellee United Auto Workers Labor Employment and Training Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/09/991284P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming it was entitled to the work. Local 562 threatened to strike if the work was reassigned to Local 36. Has not yet decided which union is entitled to the work. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0101p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As the issues raised in this appeal are matters of first impression among the courts of appeals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1933.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kaitz</SPAN> were on brief. Coleman</SPAN> were on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1992.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Visconti & Boren Ltd. was on brief for petitioners. Were on brief for respondent. It arises out of the actions of various employers alleged to have violated the National Labor Relations Act. Satisfied that the Board made the necessary additional findings and that those findings are supported by substantial evidence. I. Acme Tile and Terrazzo Co. and Roman Tile and Terrazzo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1188a.html">ALLDATA CORP V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200503/03-1351a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The NTEU made two proposals to require mid term bargaining unless the matter at issue was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-5005.htm">00-5005 -- SHARP V. WEBCO INDUSTRIES INC. -- 07/18/2001<BR></A><BR> District Judge.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013973u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will not. Grant the petition for review since the Board's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and the Board's construction of the National Labor Relations Act is reasonably defensible. The agent told the property manager at the Versailles that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/013984P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Portions of this background discussion are taken directly from this panel's earlier decision. The First Inside Agreement was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/001598.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. TMC was located outside of Pittsburgh in Ambridge. TMC was operating at a net loss caused by meeting the demands of a customer base that exceeded the processing and delivery capacities of the Ambridge facility. Which is about an hour's drive northwest of Ambridge. The Borden plant had an insufficient customer base and was slated to be sold. The Borden Youngstown facility was generally a superior facility from an operational standpoint and the wages paid to the Youngstown production workers wer e significantly less than those paid to the workers in Ambridge. The stipulated purchase price for the Y oungstown facility was approximately $1. Was dependent upon TMC first obtaining bank financing for the deal. TMC has now ceased operations. 3 was in turn contingent upon the existence of a stable. Though Byers noted that since Borden was the employer of Local 377. Local 205 was represented by its principal officer. The facts of the meeting are in dispute. It is clear that there were strong words exchanged. No work or services presently performed or hereafter assigned to the collective bargaining unit . . . will be subcontracted . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/02/991038P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even if we were inclined to agree with Monson's arguments. We must conclude that we have no jurisdiction to consider them because Monson failed to urge them before the Board. Although Anderson's seniority later was restored. He was not compensated for the wage differential and certain fringe benefits he lost in the interim. That Monson violated the Act by refusing to rescind Anderson's Although the Union was charged with. That aspect of the Order is not at issue here. 2 1 termination immediately upon learning that Anderson actually had paid his dues and for refusing to compensate Anderson for the resulting loss in pay and benefits.2 In response. Monson now raises essentially three objections to the Order and asserts that we have jurisdiction to consider them notwithstanding Monson's failure to urge them before the Board: (i) the theory under which Monson was found liable is contrary to the Act. (ii) Monson's liability under this theory was not fully litigated. Although the General Counsel's explanation of this theory in his exceptions and accompanying brief to the Board is somewhat cursory. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200104/00-1188a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Leonard R. Petitioner's salesmen were paid largely on commission. Each salesman must have met his quota for the previous three months. Abbadessa's tenure in petitioner's employ was tumultuous. The primary concern among those in Abbadessa's region was their changing commission formula. Pincus was not unsympathetic. Abbadessa was rejected for promotion because of his antagonistic relationship with Snap On. Sug gested that he thought Abbadessa was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2409.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Spellman</SPAN> were on brief. Glass</SPAN> was on brief. A magistrate judge found that a major dispute existed as that term is used in the jurisprudence of the RLA and further found that the defendants had engaged in prohibited conduct. One manifestation of this bias is that. While this pavane is in progress. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/98-1184a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Christopher H. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. Sundor refused to bargain with it and was held to have committed an unfair labor practice. Sundor now petitions for review of the Board's order in the unfair labor practice case on the ground that the underlying bargaining unit determination is unlawful. Work there is orga nized pursuant to a team based method of management that Sundor calls its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/052306P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> John's is a not for profit corporation operated by the Sisters of Mercy. Its principal offices and place of business are in St. The RNs have been represented by the United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 655. At issue in this case is a CBA entered into by St. Whichever is later. Upon written This agreement was in effect at the time the complaint was filed. The new CBA is effective from October 23. The new CBA does not contain a union security provision. 21 notice from the Union to such effect and to the further effect that Union membership was available to such RN on the same terms and conditions generally available to other members. To discharge such RN within ten (10) working days following the receipt of such notice.2 These clauses have led to a number of disputes between St. Except in those states that have enacted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTUwMDYtYWdfc28ucGRm/05-5006-ag_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034077np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will enforce the order. The Board's order is final under � 10(e) of the Act. We have jurisdiction to consider the Board's timely application to enforce its order under � 10(e) of the Act. The Board's power to fashion remedies </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1282a.html">AT SYSTEMS WEST V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Fernandez argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4121_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mickey's challenge of the Board's certification of the Union is without merit. Contending the election was unfair. A hearing was set. The hearing was scheduled to take place on December 2. Mickey's objections to the election were founded upon its allegation that a former supervisor named Lynell Watts made racially inflammatory remarks and coerced support for unionizing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1378.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Roitman & Coleman were on brief for appellants. Jr. and Freeley & Freeley were on brief for appellee United Transportation Union. ST is a railroad operator located in Springfield. BLE and UTU are two of several trade unions who have collective bargaining agreements with ST. We note the unusual numbering scheme to explain 2 2 maintains collective bargaining agreements have established a union shop. Each of which is represented by a different union. Junior engineers may have to return temporarily to train service in order to remain employed.2 Junior engineers. Have an economic interest in maintaining their train service seniority. Summary judgment is appropriate in the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. When the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cross motions simply require us to determine whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law on facts that are not disputed. Eleventh(c) was a very narrow one: to prevent compulsory dual unionism or the necessity of changing from 7 7 one union to another when an employee temporarily changes crafts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/021875u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. � 160(e) and (f) and will enforce the Board's order. Inc. are alter egos and constitute a single employer within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. The two alter egos are family owned corporations in the demolition business. They have been doing business as Mazzocchi Wrecking since November 2000. Jan Zajac ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/034051P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court will refer to the adjudicative side of the Federal Labor Relations Authority as the Authority. Concluding the Authority's order is arbitrarily overbroad. Because the remaining portions of the Authority's order are uncontested. The SIS Manual </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1905.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom O'Reilly & Grasso was on brief for respondent. Were on brief for petitioner. We declined to enforce the order and remanded to the Board for further consideration of an issue which we found the Board to have inadequately addressed. Both parties have commented on the Board's opinion. Once the Board finds that the parties have reached a binding collective bargaining agreement. It is unnecessary to consider the issue of a respondent's alleged good faith doubt of the union's majority status. We affirmed the NLRB's finding that the proposal was still open and that the union had accepted it. We were further troubled by the fact that neither party had addressed the Seventh Circuit's decision in Chicago Tribune Co. v. Which was handed down prior to oral argument in this case and which reached a result at odds with the Board's conclusion. Concluding that it was inconsistent with the policies underlying the NLRA. 5 As earlier stated. The Board's policy judgments on this type of question are entitled to substantial deference from the courts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5162a.html">VULCAN ARBOR HILL V. REICH ROBERT<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/013073P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stating: [T]he [union] stated [on December 11 that] they would allow [the company] to give the employees an increase in pay and to decrease insurance costs but no specifics were discussed. You will recall when [the company] raised wages last year. Wages and insurance are only part of the complete economic package. This is a sad occasion for all of us as this marks the first time in [the company]'s long history we won't be giving you a wage increase at this time. Please understand this is not the way we do business. We are continually exploring ways to ensure that neither our employees nor [the company] are damaged any further by this fiasco. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315501.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * This case is before the Court on the petition of the Shore Club Condominium Association. Are located at 1901 and 1905 North Ocean Drive. Is located at 1912 North Ocean Drive. Claiming that the unit sought was inappropriate because it consisted of domestic employees. Who are excluded by Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E10268DCF332E79588256B7400567EA0/$file/0017085.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> What type of grievance was before the arbitrators and whether both grievances concerned the same dispute. We have jurisdiction. I The facts are undisputed. Inc. (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981503.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a union can bring a contract action for damages against a member who sued the union without first exhausting internal union remedies as provided in the union constitution. Prevas was a member of the International Organization of Masters. This case is one of the results. Prevas was once allied with Brown and Hopkins through The Coalition for New Directions. Prevas alleged that the MMP defendants conspired among themselves and with *Some of this background is gleaned from Prevas v. The case was removed to district court. The records were confidential settlement agreements between the Union and certain of its members or employees who had made tort or contract claims against the Union. Prevas contended that he was entitled to examine these records under � 201(c) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The question in this appeal is whether a union has a contract claim for damages against a member who sued the union without exhausting internal union remedies as provided in the union constitution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988454.ord.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Now pending before the Court is a Petition for Adjudication of Civil Contempt. In which the National Labor Relations Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200201/00-1427a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Mark W. With him on the brief were Arthur F. The Board conducted an election but then impounded the ballots pending its review of the Union's claim that the election was time barred. Because the Board's decision is inconsis tent with the preference for secret ballot elections expressed in the National Labor Relations Act. Are represented by two unions: the Machinists represent the skilled mechanics while Local 618. The Regional Director of the Board granted Maher's petition over the objection of the Union that an election was barred because the Union had not had a reasonable time to bargain. Absent </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/95-6850.opa.html">STONE & WEBSTER ENG'G CORP. V. HERMAN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp. v. It is the containment structure. It is also a bulwark against a variety of disasters. A fire in a drywell is a serious matter. For extinguishing a fire gone out of control is not easy.<p> Among the people best positioned to prevent fires are the workers who tend to nuclear plants. Congress forbade employers from retaliating against employees who act in prescribed ways to ensure safety. 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-9544.htm">97-9544 -- TRIMMER V. U.S. STATES DEPT. OF LABOR -- 04/06/1999<BR></A><BR> Which is owned by the Department of Energy but run by the University of California. In the summer of 1988 a doctor determined that Trimmer was fit for light duty work. A process for finding injured employees new positions suitable to their new physical limitations and work restrictions.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/95-6850.opa.html">STONE & WEBSTER ENG'G CORP. V. HERMAN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp. v. It is the containment structure. It is also a bulwark against a variety of disasters. A fire in a drywell is a serious matter. For extinguishing a fire gone out of control is not easy.<p> Among the people best positioned to prevent fires are the workers who tend to nuclear plants. Congress forbade employers from retaliating against employees who act in prescribed ways to ensure safety. 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200207/01-1282a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was Patrick W. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Brooks was on the brief for intervenor. Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board is whether the employer refused to bargain in the face of a valid bargain ing demand. Please be advised that CASHA is now the bargaining representative for the Armored Transport Santa Maria Employees Association. CASHA will honor the existing contract between the Armored Transport Santa Maria Employees Association and Armored Transport. Inc. will conduct future bargaining with the same representatives of the Armored Transport Santa Maria Employees Association who conducted such bargaining in the past. Please be advised that CASHA is also demanding recog nition for the following A.T.I. Branches for Merger Elec tions also held: 1 Bakersfield 2 Merced 3 Victorville CASHA will respectfully file charges for refusal to bar gain with the N.L.R.B. if we do not receive a response by May 29. Irvin replied that there was no reason for AT Systems to recognize CASHA for those units because there were no contracts due to expire. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-5054.htm">02-5054 -- KARNES V. BOEING CO. -- 07/16/2003<BR></A><BR> After he was terminated for smoking marijuana on work premises. From 1984 until he was terminated in April 2000. Karnes was a member of the International Union. The terms and conditions of his employment were governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Union and Boeing. <p> In March 2000. A surveillance camera was installed in the area. Karnes was asked to submit to a drug test. His employment was terminated because of violation of Boeing's policy regarding the use of illegal drugs on Boeing premises. <p> Grievances under the CBA are subject to a three step reconciliation process that culminates in final and binding arbitration if the Union chooses to pursue the grievance. After Karnes was terminated. Subsequently withdrew the grievance without prejudice and the matter was not submitted to arbitration. The NLRB determined there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3194.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that there was substantial evidence supporting 2 Nos. 00 3194. I. BACKGROUND Masiongale is based in Muncie. The ads were for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DD36FE52E6B2E40788256B5900033951/$file/0015522.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Dutra is a marine construction. The CBA provides that Dutra will use only IBUrepresented personnel to perform Dutra's work. The IBU contended that three of its members were laid off when the non union employer took over the operation of the Harry B in Dutra's stead. Resulted in a settlement agreement between the parties that was concluded on August 23. Dutra agreed to compensate IBU workers who would have worked on the Harry B jobs had the work not been subcontracted and performed by non union workers. Dutra agreed that it would subcontract work to Master's only if the subcontractor agreed to employ IBU members 1 The expiration date of the CBA under which the initial dispute arose was June 30. The succeeding CBA was executed on September 17. The effective date was made July 1. The IBU contends that shortly after the settlement agreement was concluded. Dutra asserts that because the dispute is governed by the arbitration clause of the CBA. We have held that a failure to exhaust non judicial remedies is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/12/031768P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The election was held one week later. Which is the proper way to obtain judicial review of an otherwise unappealable certification order. Arguing that the Board erred in certifying the Union because the election was fatally flawed by the Board agent's misconduct. We conclude that the Board's findings and conclusions upholding the election are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. I. The Results of the Evidentiary Hearing A party that timely objects to an election is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1301a.html">INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Griffin argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968058.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200403/03-1155a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071195np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The only issue currently presented for our review is whether the Board acted reasonably in its initial determination of the scope of an appropriate bargaining unit at Caswell Massey's Edison facility. We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. � 160(e). A total of 48 workers are employed there. 20 are warehouse employees who do not qualify as statutory supervisors. There are 10 clerical employees working in the office area who do not qualify as supervisors or professionals under the Act. It is these employees that Caswell Massey believes should be included in the bargaining unit. The Board's Acting Regional Director found that a unit composed solely of warehouse employees was appropriate. Caswell Massey alleged that the Union was improperly certified as the employees' collective bargaining representative. The Board is authorized to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062012np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the District Court and remand with instructions to confirm the award. Five Star and the Union are parties to a collective bargaining agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/97-1068a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wasielewski was on the brief. Were on the brief. Which it argues exonerated it for acting against employees who would have been subjected to discipline regardless of their union activities. Made credibility determinations that were unsupported by the record. That the company's challenges to the Board's deci sion and order are unpersuasive. I. McQuaide is a family owned and operated interstate truck ing and warehousing business. Was found to have engaged in unfair labor practices on one prior occasion. By creating the impression that employee's union meetings were under surveillance. We need only address two because the company's other challenges are met by sufficient evidence in the record to support the Board's findings.3 Those charges involve discharged McQuaide employees Tom Boyes. Dale Salsbury.4 An employee's discharge violates section 8(a)(3) when the employee's union related activities were a motivating factor in the employer's decision. The employer then bears the burden of demonstrating </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/003113P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An employee was terminated from Lozier Corporation and the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association. At issue in this action is Step 4 which states: Within three (3) working days after receipt of such list (referring to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service list of five impartial arbitrators). This determination is not relevant to this jurisdictional appeal. The NLRB found no jurisdiction because there was no unfair labor practice. The district court granted Lozier's motion based upon the reasoning that the NLRB had exclusive jurisdiction and its determination was final. I. The review of summary judgment is de novo. At issue is whether the district court has jurisdiction over this action. The Union claims the arbitrator is required to determine the timeliness issue and that the NLRB determination 2 did not reach this question. Which is not a representation issue. The allegation that the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement were not met is clearly a contractual question and not a representational question. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/01-1486a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1351.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brown & Joy were on brief for respondent. Were on brief for petitioner. P.C. were on brief for intervenor. Agreeing that the order is valid. Permitting Dooley to vote as an employee subject to the company's claim that he was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/dd36fe52e6b2e40788256b5900033951/$FILE/0015522.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Dutra is a marine construction. The CBA provides that Dutra will use only IBUrepresented personnel to perform Dutra's work. The IBU contended that three of its members were laid off when the non union employer took over the operation of the Harry B in Dutra's stead. Resulted in a settlement agreement between the parties that was concluded on August 23. Dutra agreed to compensate IBU workers who would have worked on the Harry B jobs had the work not been subcontracted and performed by non union workers. Dutra agreed that it would subcontract work to Master's only if the subcontractor agreed to employ IBU members 1 The expiration date of the CBA under which the initial dispute arose was June 30. The succeeding CBA was executed on September 17. The effective date was made July 1. The IBU contends that shortly after the settlement agreement was concluded. Dutra asserts that because the dispute is governed by the arbitration clause of the CBA. We have held that a failure to exhaust non judicial remedies is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200207/01-1301a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Helen L. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Who Tidewater claims were lawfully locked out. 1993 Tidewater was a member of the Virginia Association of Contractors and was a party to successive collective bar gaining agreements between the Union and the VAC. 1994 all of Tidewater's operating engineers were members of the Union. As the result of which it was certified as the representative of Tidewater's operating engineers in March. In December the strikers offered unconditionally to return to work but Tide water informed the Union it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/983652P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the Union's request for the sales agreement was for relevant information and made in good faith. The Company's petition for review will be denied and the cross application of the Board to enforce its order will be granted. The Company is in the retail food business. The Store was owned by Cherry Tree Food Mart. The Company announced to the employees that it was selling the Store. It told the employees that the purchaser was Nikae Foods. The Company officially notified the Union that it was closing the Store. Not any of which were the previous employees. Information regarding how the employees were notified of the closing. The letter stated as follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1170a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Charles P. With him on the brief were John H. O'Connor were on the brief for intervenor Honeywell International. Meiklejohn was on the brief for intervenor United Automobile Workers of America. The unions had a collective bargaining agree ment with Textron that was set to expire on May 30. While negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement were underway. Textron announced that it was to be acquired by AlliedSignal. These agreements were known as the Effects Bargaining Agreement and the Competitiveness Agreement. The Army was planning no further purchases of AGT 1500 engines. The recommendation was taken up by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Efforts to influence the Commission were less successful. The Commission's recommendation was then sent to the President for review. The Stratford plant was officially slated to be closed. AlliedSig nal informed the unions that it was terminating the Competi tiveness Agreement. It is an unfair labor practice for a company to terminate or modify contract provisions regarding mandatory subjects of bargaining when the contract's term has not ended. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3322.html">CLETE E. COURSEN V. USPS<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/961199P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Board directed Overnite to cease and desist from refusing to bargain Overnite now argues that the underlying certification was The Board crossinvalid because the Board failed to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding Overnite's allegations of pre election misconduct. petitions for enforcement of its order. Is an interstate trucking firm which operates a terminal in St. Which was subsequently approved by the regional director. It was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on its objections to the election. Monark a hearing to determine the validity of a certification election when there are substantial and material issues of fact. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/03-1161a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1170a.html">HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Inc.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014015.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The only issue before us is whether Waldinger's actions were justified because of improper supervisory influence over employees who signed authorization cards for union representation. Because that decision was supported by substantial evidence. I. BACKGROUND The material facts of this case are not in dispute. Waldinger was a signatory to the National Mechanical Equipment Service and Maintenance Agreement. Waldinger notified the International Union that it was terminating the agreement effective 16 August 1997. The International Union notified Local 72 of the termination and suggested that the union try and obtain a local agreement if one was not already in place. Jones contacted Peterson and another service technician who was a union member and asked them to notify Waldinger's service technicians that a meeting would be held at the union hall on 31 July 1997. Peterson informed some of the technicians of the meeting and told them it was important that they be there. Answered questions and 1 The parties stipulated that the relevant unit was: All full time and part time HVAC service technicians employed by [Waldinger] out of its 1600 Wilson Way. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/01-9525.htm">01-9525 -- PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF OKLAHOMA V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 02/05/2003<BR></A><BR> We deny the Company's petition for review and grant the Board's cross application for enforcement.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2174_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One condition of a grant is that the recipient </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4079.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing instead that the election should not have been held at all. The National Labor Relations Board claims the election was valid and seeks enforcement of its order requiring Deutsche Post to recognize and bargain with the Union. Yellowstone argued that the representation petition was premature because of impending changes to the bargaining unit. Yellowstone planned to move from its Pratt Boulevard facility to a new Brummel Road facility that was a mile and a half away and had more than three times as much production space. Deutsche Post projected the Brummel Road facility would have 150 160 employees by the end of November 2000 and over 300 employees by the end of the first quarter of 2001. Although some of the hub's anticipated business was expected to involve different combinations of sorting and shipping than had taken place at the Pratt Boulevard plant. Claims the certification was invalid because the timing of the election was inappropriate. The Board's findings are conclusive if supported by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972129.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Universal Maritime contends that these payments are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0164n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The international and local unions of which they were members. Attempting to recover severance pay to which the plaintiffs were allegedly entitled when IP sold the paper mill at which plaintiffs were employed ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/04-1411a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Theodore R. With her on the brief were Arthur F. Which is owned and operated by the Equitable Life Assurance Society and ITC Fashion Valley Corporation. Because the underlying question is one of state law as to which we can only speculate. List the individual(s) who will participate. The Union decided to stage the protest there because the store advertises in the paper and is located not far from the paper's premises. The protestors distributed a handbill addressed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/97-1355a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was Mark D. With him on the brief was James F. I Collective bargaining and labor relations in the federal government are governed by the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute.