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

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

Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity

Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

Prill v. N.L.R.B

In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

N.L.R.B.v. Talsol Corp.

Holding that an employee's comments about safety at a group meeting attended by employees and management constituted concerted activity because the meeting was conducted to address plant safety concerns, the employee's questions were on the topic of safety, and the context indicated that the employee's statements were “[c]learly ... not purely personal gripes”

N.L.R.B. v. Main Street Terrace Care Center

Aroostook County v. N.L.R.B

Upholding NLRB's jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 158, part of the National Labor Relations Act, over an employer

Prill v. N.L.R.B

Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

Ewing v. N.L.R.B

Approving the Meyers II rule