§

Decker Truck Line, Inc.

27-CA-107239 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 23, 2014)
Decker Truck Line, Inc.

20 Cited authorities

  1. Republic of Arg. v. NML Capital, Ltd.

    573 U.S. 134 (2014)   Cited 255 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1609 does not immunize "a foreign sovereign's extraterritorial assets" from post-judgment discovery

  2. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

    487 U.S. 1205 (1988)   Cited 106 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

  3. Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

    502 U.S. 814 (1991)   Cited 78 times

    No. 90-1805. October 7, 1991, OCTOBER TERM, 1991. C.A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 2d 539.

  4. N.L.R.B. v. McCullough Environmental Serv

    5 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1993)   Cited 98 times
    Concluding that statement that "things were going to get a lot tougher around here" upon unionization constituted a threat

  5. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

  6. Bourne v. N.L.R.B

    332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964)   Cited 93 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

  7. Consolidated Diesel Co. v. N.L.R.B

    263 F.3d 345 (4th Cir. 2001)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "[t]here would be nothing left of [the Act's] rights if every time employees exercised them in a way that was somehow offensive to someone," they were subject to the threat of discipline

  8. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 27 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Intertherm, Inc.

    596 F.2d 267 (8th Cir. 1979)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that employees have a near-absolute right to wear union insignia in the absence of evidence relating to employee efficiency or plant discipline

  10. Gardner Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    115 F.3d 636 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 13 times

    Nos. 94-70192, 94-70262 Argued and Submitted August 18, 1995 — San Francisco, California. Filed May 15, 1997 Robert G. Hulteng, Jeffrey S. Bosley, Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff, Tichy Mathiason, San Francisco, CA, for petitioner-cross-respondent, Gardner Mechanical Services, Inc. Charles Donnelly, John J. Fawley, Washington, DC, for respondent-cross-petitioner, National Labor Relations Board. John J. Davis, Jr., McCarthy, Johnson Miller, San Francisco, CA, for respondent-intervenor, U.S. Local 350

  11. Section 396.11 - Driver vehicle inspection report(s)

    49 C.F.R. § 396.11   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring daily reports from drivers

  12. Section 396.13 - Driver inspection

    49 C.F.R. § 396.13   Cited 20 times

    Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall: (a) Be satisfied that the motor vehicle is in safe operating condition; (b) Review the last driver vehicle inspection report if required by § 396.11(a)(2)(i) ; and (c) Sign the report to acknowledge that the driver has reviewed it and that there is a certification that the required repairs have been performed. The signature requirement does not apply to listed defects on a towed unit which is no longer part of the vehicle combination. 49 C.F.R. §396

  13. Section 396.1 - Scope

    49 C.F.R. § 396.1   Cited 8 times

    (a) Every motor carrier, its officers, drivers, agents, representatives, and employees directly concerned with the inspection or maintenance of commercial motor vehicles must be knowledgeable of and comply with the rules of this part. (b) Every intermodal equipment provider, its officers, agents, representatives, and employees directly concerned with the inspection or maintenance of intermodal equipment interchanged or offered for interchange to motor carriers must be knowledgeable of and comply