§

Executive Mgt. Services

355 N.L.R.B. 185 (N.L.R.B. 2010)
Executive Mgt. Services

6 Cited authorities

  1. Soule Glass and Glazing Co. v. N.L.R.B

    652 F.2d 1055 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 96 times
    Holding that the employer "must bargain with respect to the decision to remove work from bargaining unit employees, not merely its effects on the employees"

  2. Bourne v. N.L.R.B

    332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964)   Cited 93 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

  3. Hotel Emp. Restaurant Emp. Un. v. N.L.R.B

    760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 26 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Affirming Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Midwestern Personnel

    322 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2003)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 02-2209, 02-2566. Argued December 2, 2002. Decided March 11, 2003. Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Ilana Diamond Rovner, Circuit Judge. Christopher W. Young (Argued), National Labor Relations Board, Contempt Litigation Branch, Washington, DC, Frederick C. Havard, National Labor Relations Board, Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, DC, Roberto G. Chavarry, National Labor Relations Board, Region 25, Indianapolis, IN, for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent. James U. Smith, III (Argued)

  5. Mushroom Transportation Company v. N.L.R.B

    330 F.2d 683 (3d Cir. 1964)   Cited 48 times
    In Mushroom Transportation Co. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 683, 685 (3d Cir. 1964), we held that to qualify as concerted activity "it must appear at the very least that [the conduct] was engaged in with the object of initiating or inducing or preparing for group action or that it had some relation to group action in the interest of the employees."

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Colonial Haven Nursing Home, Inc.

    542 F.2d 691 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that "anticipatory photographing. . . . does not violate § 8 of the Act where the photographs are taken to establish for purposes of an injunction suit that pickets engaged in violence"