§

Securitas Security Services USA

369 N.L.R.B. 57 (N.L.R.B. 2020)
Securitas Security Services USA

6 Cited authorities

  1. Midwest Div. MMC, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    867 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2017)   Cited 7 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a hospital committed unfair labor practice by refusing to disclose "information about allegations investigated by the [hospital's peer review committee]" because the "information could have substantial relevance to the Union's representation of affected employees" and that interest outweighed the hospital's confidentiality interest as provided by state statute prohibiting disclosure

  2. Banner Health Sys. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    851 F.3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 2017)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that restrictions on employees' communications cannot sweep "so broadly as to include working conditions"

  3. Hyundai Am. Shipping Agency, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    805 F.3d 309 (D.C. Cir. 2015)   Cited 2 times
    Declining to endorse the Board's "novel view" but holding that Hyundai's rule prohibiting discussion of all matters under investigation "was so broad and undifferentiated that the Board reasonably concluded that Hyundai did not present a legitimate business justification for it"

  4. Aroostook County v. N.L.R.B

    81 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1996)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding NLRB's jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 158, part of the National Labor Relations Act, over an employer

  5. Pergament United Sales, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 20 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "due process is satisfied when a complaint gives a respondent fair notice . . . and when the conduct implicated in the alleged violation has been fully and fairly litigated"

  6. Enterprises v. N.L.R.B

    257 F. App'x 642 (4th Cir. 2007)

    Nos. 06-1881, 06-1917. Argued September 25, 2007. Decided December 7, 2007. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. (9-CA-40915; 9-CA41191; 9-CA-41291; 9-CA-41338). ARGUED: Grant T. Pecor, Nantz, Litowich, Smith, Girard Hamilton, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for SNE Enterprises, Inc. David A. Seid, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for the Board. ON BRIEF: Ronald Meisburg, General Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy