§
IMAGE FIRST

5 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Parts Co.

    375 U.S. 405 (1964)   Cited 213 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

  2. Caterpillar Logistics, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    835 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2016)   Cited 12 times

    Nos. 15–1433/1611 07-19-2016 Caterpillar Logistics, Inc., Petitioner/Cross–Respondent, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/Cross–Petitioner, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Intervening Respondent. ARGUED: Joseph J. Torres, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Petitioner/Cross–Respondent. Valerie L. Collins, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for Respondent/Cross–Petitioner. Kristin Seifert Watson, Cloppert

  3. Community Hospitals of Cent Cal. v. N.L.R.B

    335 F.3d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the single-facility presumption can be rebutted by a showing of “functional integration,” among other factors

  4. Guardsmark, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    475 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2007)   Cited 16 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Striking down rule that only allowed employees to complain internally

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Curwood Inc.

    397 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2005)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing differences between expert and lay testimony and concluding that agent's testimony about firearms collection was expert testimony, as it was based on his "training and experience"