§

Pacific Coast Supply, LLC d/b/a Anderson Lumber Company

360 N.L.R.B. 538 (N.L.R.B. 2014)
Pacific Coast Supply, LLC d/b/a Anderson Lumber Company

15 Cited authorities

  1. Allentown Mack Sales & Service, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    522 U.S. 359 (1998)   Cited 424 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board "is not free to prescribe what inferences from the evidence it will accept and reject, but must draw all those inferences that the evidence fairly demands"

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc.

    494 U.S. 775 (1990)   Cited 176 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Board has "considerable deference" in determining the legal rule to apply and should be upheld "as long as it is rational and consistent with the Act"

  3. Labor Board v. General Motors

    373 U.S. 734 (1963)   Cited 190 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that termination is also the appropriate sanction for failure to pay fees under an agency-shop clause

  4. Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    517 U.S. 781 (1996)   Cited 59 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NLRB is due "considerable deference . . . by virtue of its charge to develop national labor policy"

  5. Vincent Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    209 F.3d 727 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 44 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Vincent Industrial, we directed the Board to premise every bargaining order on an "explicit[ balanc[ing][of] three considerations: (1) the employees' Section 7 rights [ 29 U.S.C. § 157]; (2) whether other purposes of the [NLRA] override the rights of employees to choose their bargaining representatives; and (3) whether alternative remedies are adequate to remedy the violations of the [NLRA]]."

  6. Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    117 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that, "[b]ecause affirmative bargaining orders interfere with the employee free choice that is a core principle of the Act," we "view them with suspicion" and demand special justification for them

  7. Highlands Hosp. v. National Labor

    508 F.3d 28 (D.C. Cir. 2007)   Cited 15 times
    Affirming the Board's finding that a petition did not satisfy an employer's burden of proving an actual loss of majority support because one signatory's unequivocal post-petition demonstration of support for the union invalidated her signature and, without that signature, the petition lacked support of a majority of bargaining unit employees

  8. Exxel/Atmos, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    28 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1994)   Cited 28 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stressing appropriateness of bargaining order to remedy bad faith bargaining during certification year

  9. 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

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Miller Waste Mills

    315 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2003)   Cited 8 times

    No. 01-3073. Submitted: October 7, 2002. Filed: January 10, 2003. David A. Seid, argued, Washington, DC (Sharon I. Block, Arthur F. Rosenfeld, John E. Higgins, Jr., John H. Ferguson, Aileen A. Armstrong, on the brief), for petitioner. Lee A. Lastovich, argued, Minneapolis, MN (Paul J. Zech, on the brief), for respondent. Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, and HEANEY and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. HEANEY, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board petitions this court to enforce its order

  11. Section 152 - Definitions

    29 U.S.C. § 152   Cited 3,203 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Defining a supervisor to include “any individual having authority . . . to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment”