American Benefit Corporation

17 Cited authorities

Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board
379 U.S. 203 (1964) Cited 733 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 712 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
Labor Board v. Laughlin
301 U.S. 1 (1937) Cited 1,503 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
460 U.S. 693 (1983) Cited 313 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 265 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
St. George Warehouse, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
420 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2005) Cited 36 times 1 Legal Analyses
Explaining that under a substantial evidence standard of review, an administrative fact-finder's determinations on issues of credibility should not be reversed unless inherently incredible or patently unreasonable
Regal Cinemas, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
317 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2003) Cited 31 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming the Board's finding of a Section 8 violation where the layoff was motivated by labor costs rather than technological advances
Bath Marine v. N.L.R.B
475 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2007) Cited 20 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a motion for reconsideration was not required to exhaust where the Board had "adequate notice" of the party's position
Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
253 F.3d 125 (D.C. Cir. 2001) Cited 12 times
Concluding that the following duration clause did not waive the union's rights: “The Effects Bargaining Agreement shall be effective as of May 30, 1994, and shall remain in effect until midnight on June 6, 1997, but not thereafter unless renewed or extended in writing by the parties”
Daily News of Los Angeles v. N.L.R.B
73 F.3d 406 (D.C. Cir. 1996) Cited 15 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that merit-increase program is a mandatory subject of bargaining

American Benefit Corporation

17 Cited authorities

Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis

Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights

Approving "discovery-type standard"

Explaining that under a substantial evidence standard of review, an administrative fact-finder's determinations on issues of credibility should not be reversed unless inherently incredible or patently unreasonable

Affirming the Board's finding of a Section 8 violation where the layoff was motivated by labor costs rather than technological advances

Holding that a motion for reconsideration was not required to exhaust where the Board had "adequate notice" of the party's position

Concluding that the following duration clause did not waive the union's rights: “The Effects Bargaining Agreement shall be effective as of May 30, 1994, and shall remain in effect until midnight on June 6, 1997, but not thereafter unless renewed or extended in writing by the parties”

Holding that merit-increase program is a mandatory subject of bargaining