§

Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.

355 N.L.R.B. 507 (N.L.R.B. 2010)
Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 708 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

  2. Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    460 U.S. 693 (1983)   Cited 309 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 263 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"

  4. Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.

    356 U.S. 342 (1958)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."

  5. Local 777, Democratic U. Org. Com v. N.L.R.B

    603 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1978)   Cited 102 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding "any great amount of deference" "inappropriate" "because of the Board's history of vacillation"

  6. Trafford v. N.L.R.B

    478 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2007)   Cited 21 times
    Holding a start up company liable for its predecessor's union obligations

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second