§

UNITE HERE Local 1(Hyatt Regency Chicago)

369 N.L.R.B. 65 (N.L.R.B. 2020)
UNITE HERE Local 1(Hyatt Regency Chicago)

18 Cited authorities

  1. Upjohn Co. v. United States

    449 U.S. 383 (1981)   Cited 4,267 times   131 Legal Analyses
    Holding that communications between corporate counsel and a corporation's employees made for the purpose of rendering legal advice are protected by the attorney-client privilege

  2. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,623 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

  3. John Wiley Sons v. Livingston

    376 U.S. 543 (1964)   Cited 1,767 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement survived a corporate merger and bound the resulting corporation

  4. City of Philadelphia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.

    205 F. Supp. 830 (E.D. Pa. 1962)   Cited 123 times
    In Westinghouse, the Third Circuit explained that selective waiver " permits the client who has disclosed privileged communications to one party to continue asserting the privilege against other parties."

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ingredion Inc.

    930 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 2019)   Cited 13 times
    Finding no reason to reverse the Board's decision where the company "received a ‘full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter’ " and failed to identify any instance of prejudice

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Whitesell Corp.

    638 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2011)   Cited 12 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the denial of enforcement on the basis that the Board lacked a proper quorum did not deprive the Board of jurisdiction to consider the case anew

  7. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    711 F.2d 348 (D.C. Cir. 1983)   Cited 41 times

    Nos. 82-1418 to 82-1420, 82-1743, 82-1589 and 82-1940. Argued May 5, 1983. Decided June 30, 1983. George H. Cohen, with whom Laurence Gold, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for petitioners, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, Local Union No. 6-418, AFL-CIO, et al. George J. Tichy, II, San Francisco, Cal., with whom Robert K. Carrol, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner, Borden Chemical, A Division of Borden, Inc. Howard A. Crawford, with whom Jack D. Rowe, Kansas City, Mo., was on brief, for petitioner

  8. United States Testing Co. v. N.L.R.B

    160 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 1998)   Cited 18 times
    Rejecting employer's contention that it had insufficient notice regarding the potential relevance of a union request for individual insurance claims information because "context is everything," and the employer "put on the table" the concern of growing health care costs

  9. Irontiger Logistics, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    823 F.3d 696 (D.C. Cir. 2016)   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 15–1081. 05-20-2016 IRONTIGER LOGISTICS, INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. Thomas P. Krukowski argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner. Ruth E. Burdick, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Richard F. Griffin, Jr., General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Robert J. Englehart, Supervisory Attorney, and Marni

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Illinois-American Water Co.

    933 F.2d 1368 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that accretion is "the addition of a relatively small group of employees to an existing bargaining unit where these additional employees have a sufficient community of interest with the unit employees and have no separate identity."