Independence Residences Inc

26 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 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"
New Process Steel v. N.L.R.B.
560 U.S. 674 (2010) Cited 141 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board cannot exercise its powers absent a lawfully appointed quorum
Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Brown
554 U.S. 60 (2008) Cited 109 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding preempted two provisions of a California statute where the provisions precluded the use of state funds “to assist, promote, or deter union organizing”
Brooks v. Labor Board
348 U.S. 96 (1954) Cited 300 times
Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board
Pittsburgh Glass Co. v. Board
313 U.S. 146 (1941) Cited 294 times
In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.
Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
517 U.S. 781 (1996) Cited 59 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that NLRB is due "considerable deference . . . by virtue of its charge to develop national labor policy"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Financial Institution Employees, Local 1182
475 U.S. 192 (1986) Cited 76 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that labor law prohibits the assignment or transfer of a collective bargaining agreement against the wishes of the workers for whom the agreement provides representation
Heal. Ass'n of N.Y. State v. Pataki
471 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 48 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding that a state has a proprietary interest in getting what it paid for
N.L.R.B. v. Star Color Plate Service
843 F.2d 1507 (2d Cir. 1988) Cited 49 times
Holding that certification of a union was not precluded by a five-year delay and significant unit turnover
Raymond F. Kravis Center v. N. L. R. B
550 F.3d 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Cited 12 times 3 Legal Analyses
Rejecting defense based on the impropriety of union's original majority status because “[t]he six-month time period for challenging Local 623's alleged lack of majority support in 1992 and 1998 passed long before [employer] first raised this challenge”
Section 211-A - Prohibition against use of funds
N.Y. Lab. Law § 211-A Cited 2 times
1. The legislature hereby finds and declares that sound fiscal management requires vigilance to ensure that funds appropriated by the legislature for the purchase of goods and provision of needed services are ultimately expended solely for the purpose for which they were appropriated. The legislature finds and declares that when public funds are appropriated for the purchase of specific goods and/or the provision of needed services, and those funds are instead used to encourage or discourage union

Independence Residences Inc

26 Cited authorities

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 Board cannot exercise its powers absent a lawfully appointed quorum

Holding preempted two provisions of a California statute where the provisions precluded the use of state funds “to assist, promote, or deter union organizing”

Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board

In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.

Holding that NLRB is due "considerable deference . . . by virtue of its charge to develop national labor policy"

Holding that labor law prohibits the assignment or transfer of a collective bargaining agreement against the wishes of the workers for whom the agreement provides representation

Concluding that a state has a proprietary interest in getting what it paid for

Holding that certification of a union was not precluded by a five-year delay and significant unit turnover

Rejecting defense based on the impropriety of union's original majority status because “[t]he six-month time period for challenging Local 623's alleged lack of majority support in 1992 and 1998 passed long before [employer] first raised this challenge”