§

T-Mobile USA, Inc.

369 N.L.R.B. 50 (N.L.R.B. 2020)
T-Mobile USA, Inc.

17 Cited authorities

  1. Beth Israel Hospital v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    437 U.S. 483 (1978)   Cited 220 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in the context of solicitation rules, such circumstances are required to justify restrictions on solicitation during nonworking time

  2. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 356 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  3. Central Hardware Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    407 U.S. 539 (1972)   Cited 142 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that retail store parking lot was not "open to the public" and that the retail store could exclude nonemployee union members from parking lot

  4. Kallail v. Alliant Energy Corporate Servs., Inc.

    691 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2012)   Cited 108 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding a rotating shift to be essential where the employer contended it allowed it to handle emergencies more effectively and enhanced the non-work life of all employees

  5. Intertape Polymer Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    801 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2015)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that "even if . . . leaflet[t]ing is construed as 'out of the ordinary,' is plainly insufficient to establish . . . coercion"

  6. Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Nat. Lbr. Relations Bd.

    144 F.3d 830 (D.C. Cir. 1998)   Cited 28 times
    Deferring to agency's resolution of contradictory evidence

  7. Poly-America, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    260 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2001)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that strikers who protest unfair labor practices are entitled to unconditional reinstatement

  8. Federated Logistics Operations v. N.L.R.B

    400 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2005)   Cited 16 times

    Nos. 03-1323, 03-1357. Argued September 14, 2004. Decided February 25, 2005. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Meir Feder argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Andrew M. Kramer and Julia M. Broas. Robert J. Englehart, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Rosenfeld, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel

  9. Guard Publishing Co. v. N.L.R.B

    571 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 2009)   Cited 11 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Reviewing an employer's challenge to only the unfavorable portions of an NLRB ruling

  10. Conagra Foods, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    813 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir. 2016)   Cited 4 times   4 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 14–3771 15–1049. 02-19-2016 CONAGRA FOODS, INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 75, Intervenor. ConAgra Foods, Inc., Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 75, Intervenor. Chad P. Richter, argued, Ross M. Gardner, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner. Milakshmi V. Rajapakse, argued, Washington, DC, for Respondent. James B. Coppess, argued