§

AK Steel Corporation

06-CA-036963 (N.L.R.B. May. 27, 2011)
AK Steel Corporation

15 Cited authorities

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

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,687 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 "

  2. Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    440 U.S. 301 (1979)   Cited 228 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union's request for employee aptitude tests was relevant to its claim, but employer's interest in preserving confidentiality was also legitimate, and disclosing the information only upon the employee's written consent was a reasonable accommodation

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 265 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"

  4. Rashkind v. Marrero

    450 U.S. 913 (1981)   Cited 163 times
    Finding violation of Fourth Amendment rights sufficient

  5. N.L.R.B. v. A-Plus Roofing, Inc.

    39 F.3d 1410 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that a magistrate judge did not have authority under § 636(b) to conduct criminal contempt trial without consent of defendant

  6. 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

  7. Facet Enterprises, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    907 F.2d 963 (10th Cir. 1990)   Cited 30 times
    In Facet Enterprises, we reasoned "[t]he policies underlying [§ 160(e)], i.e., notice, efficiency and providing the Board with the first opportunity to consider a claim, would have been undermined had the Supreme Court allowed judicial review" in Woelke & Romero and Garment Workers' Union.

  8. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    489 F.3d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2007)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that a union is entitled to inspect the data relied on by an employer and does not have to accept the employer's bald assertions or generalized figures at face value"

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Associated General Contractors

    633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980)   Cited 33 times

    No. 79-7484. Argued and Submitted September 9, 1980. Decided October 16, 1980. Rehearing Denied December 22, 1980. Jerrold J. Wohlgemuth, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. James P. Watson, Los Angeles, Cal. (on brief), for respondent. Victor J. Van Bourg, Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg Roger, San Francisco, Cal., for intervenor. On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before WRIGHT and POOLE, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, Senior District Judge. Of the District of

  10. Curtiss-Wright, Wright Aero. Div. v. N.L.R.B

    347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965)   Cited 55 times
    Noting the Board has "considerable leeway in amplifying or expanding certain details not specifically set forth in the complaint if they accord with the general substance of the complaint"