§

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS

01-CA-153956 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 4, 2019)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS

8 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America

    391 U.S. 418 (1968)   Cited 215 times
    Holding that union could not expel member because he filed unfair labor practice charge against it without first exhausting internal remedies as provided in union constitution

  2. Nash v. Florida Industrial Comm'n

    389 U.S. 235 (1967)   Cited 141 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding preempted an administrative policy interpreting presumably valid state unemployment insurance law exception for "labor disputes" to include proceedings under NLRB complaints

  3. Midwest Div. MMC, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    867 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2017)   Cited 7 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a hospital committed unfair labor practice by refusing to disclose "information about allegations investigated by the [hospital's peer review committee]" because the "information could have substantial relevance to the Union's representation of affected employees" and that interest outweighed the hospital's confidentiality interest as provided by state statute prohibiting disclosure

  4. Care One at Madison Ave., LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    832 F.3d 351 (D.C. Cir. 2016)   Cited 4 times
    Rejecting similar purported catch-22

  5. Banner Health Sys. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    851 F.3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 2017)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that restrictions on employees' communications cannot sweep "so broadly as to include working conditions"

  6. Hyundai Am. Shipping Agency, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    805 F.3d 309 (D.C. Cir. 2015)   Cited 2 times
    Declining to endorse the Board's "novel view" but holding that Hyundai's rule prohibiting discussion of all matters under investigation "was so broad and undifferentiated that the Board reasonably concluded that Hyundai did not present a legitimate business justification for it"

  7. Enterprises v. N.L.R.B

    257 F. App'x 642 (4th Cir. 2007)

    Nos. 06-1881, 06-1917. Argued September 25, 2007. Decided December 7, 2007. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. (9-CA-40915; 9-CA41191; 9-CA-41291; 9-CA-41338). ARGUED: Grant T. Pecor, Nantz, Litowich, Smith, Girard Hamilton, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for SNE Enterprises, Inc. David A. Seid, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for the Board. ON BRIEF: Ronald Meisburg, General Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy

  8. Ridgely Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B

    510 F.2d 185 (D.C. Cir. 1975)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 73-2230, 73-2251. March 21, 1975. Norman Geiger, Brooklyn, N. Y., was on the brief for petitioner. Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., and Jay E. Shanklin and Morton Namrow, Attys., N.L.R.B., were on the brief for respondent. Petition for Review of Orders of the National Labor Relations Board. Before RICHARD T. RIVES, Senior Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, and WRIGHT