§

San Juan Teachers Assn.

355 N.L.R.B. 172 (N.L.R.B. 2010)
San Juan Teachers Assn.

5 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. 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."

  3. Schikore v. Bankamerica Supplemental Retirement Plan

    269 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 169 times
    Holding that the Plan Administrator's determination that the common law mailbox rule was inapplicable under ERISA was arbitrary and capricious

  4. Mulder v. C.I.R

    855 F.2d 208 (5th Cir. 1988)   Cited 49 times
    Finding no "due diligence" where "two letters posted shortly before the notice . . . were returned undelivered" and the notice itself was neither delivered nor returned

  5. 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