§

Modern Management Services, LLC d/b/a The Modern Honolulu

361 N.L.R.B. 228 (N.L.R.B. 2014)
Modern Management Services, LLC d/b/a The Modern Honolulu

12 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

    465 U.S. 822 (1984)   Cited 204 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection

  2. Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

    379 U.S. 21 (1964)   Cited 106 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

  3. 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.

  4. Kiewit Power Constructors Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    652 F.3d 22 (D.C. Cir. 2011)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that a worker telling a supervisor he had “better bring [his] boxing gloves” in a dispute over break time did not lose the Act's protection

  5. 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.

  6. Pergament United Sales, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 20 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "due process is satisfied when a complaint gives a respondent fair notice . . . and when the conduct implicated in the alleged violation has been fully and fairly litigated"

  7. 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

  8. St. Margaret v. N.L.R.B

    519 F.3d 373 (7th Cir. 2008)   Cited 3 times

    Nos. 07-2752, 07-3110. Argued February 22, 2008. Decided March 11, 2008. Jeffrey C. Kauffman (argued), Seyfarth Shaw, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent. Joseph A. Barker, Chicago, IL, Linda J. Dreeben, Usha Dheenan (argued), National Labor Relations Board, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and BAUER and POSNER, Circuit Judges. POSNER, Circuit Judge. The Labor Board found that St. Margaret, which owns and operates

  9. Timsco Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    819 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 14 times
    Upholding a Board determination that an interrogation of a non-union member was coercive based on the employer's statement that "union organizers were `going to screw up a lot of jobs for a lot of people'"

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Quality C.A.T.V., Inc.

    824 F.2d 542 (7th Cir. 1987)   Cited 5 times

    Nos. 86-1811, 86-1988. Argued February 10, 1987. Decided June 29, 1987. Judith Dowd, N.L.R.B., Elliott Moore, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Stephen C. Cline, Peterson, Haramy, Cline Shoup, Indianapolis, Ind., for respondent. Before WOOD and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge. ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board ("Board") has filed a petition asking this court to enforce an order of the Board, which held that respondent, Quality