§

Purple Communications, Inc.

361 N.L.R.B. 575 (N.L.R.B. 2014)
Purple Communications, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,033 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wyman-Gordon Co.

    394 U.S. 759 (1969)   Cited 806 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding invalid a legislative rule developed in agency adjudication

  3. 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

  4. Guard Publishing Co. v. N.L.R.B

    571 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 2009)   Cited 11 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Reviewing an employer's challenge to only the unfavorable portions of an NLRB ruling

  5. Heartland Human Servs. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    746 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    Nos. 13–1954 13–2079. 2014-03-14 HEARTLAND HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner/Cross–Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent/Cross–Petitioner, and American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, AFL–CIO, Intervening Respondent. Linda Dreeben, Jill A. Griffin, David Habenstreit, Barbara A. Sheehy, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, Daniel L. Hubbel, National Labor Relations Board, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent/Cross–Petitioner

  6. DTR Industries, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    39 F.3d 106 (6th Cir. 1994)   Cited 17 times
    In DTR I, the predictions made were about possible lost business in the face of unionization, contained in a letter from the employer's president to its employees shortly before a union election.

  7. 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"

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Lumber and Mill Employers Ass'n

    736 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1984)

    No. 83-7117. Argued and Submitted April 10, 1984. Decided June 27, 1984. Howard Perlstein, NLRB, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. A.K. Abraham, Robert M. Cassel, Berman, Cassel Carter, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. On Application for Enforcement of An Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before SNEED and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge. Honorable James M. Burns, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. SNEED, Circuit Judge:

  9. National Labor Rel. Board v. Gen. Shoe Corp.

    192 F.2d 504 (6th Cir. 1951)   Cited 26 times
    Holding similar committee to be labor organization