Service Employees Local 715 (Stanford Hospital)

8 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 263 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Financial Institution Employees, Local 1182
475 U.S. 192 (1986) Cited 76 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that labor law prohibits the assignment or transfer of a collective bargaining agreement against the wishes of the workers for whom the agreement provides representation
Raymond F. Kravis Center v. N. L. R. B
550 F.3d 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Cited 12 times 3 Legal Analyses
Rejecting defense based on the impropriety of union's original majority status because “[t]he six-month time period for challenging Local 623's alleged lack of majority support in 1992 and 1998 passed long before [employer] first raised this challenge”
N.L.R.B. v. Public Serv. Elec. Gas Co.
157 F.3d 222 (3d Cir. 1998) Cited 11 times 1 Legal Analyses
Joining several courts of appeals in applying the clear and unequivocal notice rule, namely that "[t]he 10(b) period begins when the victim of an unfair labor practice receives unequivocal notice of a final adverse decision. Rumors or suspicions will not do. . . ."
CPS Chemical Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
160 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 1998) Cited 6 times
Holding that neither differences in size, bylaws, and internal procedures, nor the transfer and commingling of assets was sufficient to demonstrate a discontinuity of representation
General Electric Company v. N.L.R.B
412 F.2d 512 (2d Cir. 1969) Cited 30 times
Upholding NLRB's determination that unions do not commit unfair labor practices by insisting that employer bargain with mixed-union negotiating committee
Seattle-First Nat. Bank v. N.L.R.B
892 F.2d 792 (9th Cir. 1989) Cited 8 times
Distinguishing case where independent union "swallowed up by another local" on affiliation
Section 226 - Itemized statement of wages
Cal. Lab. Code § 226 Cited 2,304 times 127 Legal Analyses
Providing only statutory penalties

Service Employees Local 715 (Stanford Hospital)

8 Cited authorities

Approving "discovery-type standard"

Holding that labor law prohibits the assignment or transfer of a collective bargaining agreement against the wishes of the workers for whom the agreement provides representation

Rejecting defense based on the impropriety of union's original majority status because “[t]he six-month time period for challenging Local 623's alleged lack of majority support in 1992 and 1998 passed long before [employer] first raised this challenge”

Joining several courts of appeals in applying the clear and unequivocal notice rule, namely that "[t]he 10(b) period begins when the victim of an unfair labor practice receives unequivocal notice of a final adverse decision. Rumors or suspicions will not do. . . ."

Holding that neither differences in size, bylaws, and internal procedures, nor the transfer and commingling of assets was sufficient to demonstrate a discontinuity of representation

Upholding NLRB's determination that unions do not commit unfair labor practices by insisting that employer bargain with mixed-union negotiating committee

Distinguishing case where independent union "swallowed up by another local" on affiliation

Providing only statutory penalties