§

Capital Iron Works Co.

355 N.L.R.B. 127 (N.L.R.B. 2010)
Capital Iron Works Co.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    564 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 2009)   Cited 30 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that two-member NLRB cannot issue decisions

  2. Snell Island SNF LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    568 F.3d 410 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Snell Island SNF LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, 568 F.3d 410 (2d Cir. 2009), we held that two Board members may exercise the Board's authority in such circumstances as a quorum of a three-member delegate group, overridden that holding in New Process Steel, L.P. v. National Labor Relations Board, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2635, ___ L.Ed.2d ___, 2010 WL 2400089 (2010).

  3. New Process Steel, L.P. v. N.L.R.B

    564 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 15 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that a two-member panel of the NLRB — the same panel that adjudicated the instant case — "had authority to hear the labor dispute," id. at 848.

  4. Northeastern Land v. National Labor Relations

    560 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2009)   Cited 14 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Northeastern Land Services v. NLRB, 560 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2009), the court held that, "[t]he Board's delegation of its institutional power to a panel that ultimately consisted of a two-member quorum because of a vacancy was lawful under the plain text of section 3(b)."

  5. Narricot Indus. v. N.L.R.B

    587 F.3d 654 (4th Cir. 2009)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that two-member NLRB can issue decisions

  6. Teamsters v. N.L.R.B

    590 F.3d 849 (10th Cir. 2009)   Cited 7 times
    Applying Chevron to the Board's interpretation of its delegation authority under § 153(b)

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second