§

American Medical Response Mid-Atlantic, Inc.

369 N.L.R.B. 125 (N.L.R.B. 2020)
American Medical Response Mid-Atlantic, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

    487 U.S. 1205 (1988)   Cited 105 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.

    360 U.S. 301 (1959)   Cited 106 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred

  3. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

  4. Dreis Krump Mfg. Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    544 F.2d 320 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding Board's refusal to defer on ground that award would violate employee's § 7 rights.

  5. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 27 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Fermont

    928 F.2d 609 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 2 times

    No. 1075, Docket 90-4130. Argued February 28, 1991. Decided March 21, 1991. Marilyn O'Rourke, Washington, D.C. (Jerry M. Hunter, Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Howard E. Perlstein, Supervisory Atty., Peter D. Winkler, Robert N. Herman, Office of Gen. Counsel, John Truesdale, Office of Executive Secretary, Washington, D.C., Peter B. Hoffman, Office of the Director, Hartford, Conn., of counsel), for petitioner. Robert B. Mitchell

  7. United States Postal Service v. N.L.R.B

    652 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 3 times
    Reviewing the "indefensible under the circumstances" test as applied in this Circuit

  8. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,418 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party