§

Metropolitan Edison Company

330 N.L.R.B. 107 (N.L.R.B. 1999)
Metropolitan Edison Company

12 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Laughlin

    301 U.S. 1 (1937)   Cited 1,501 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis

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

    440 U.S. 301 (1979)   Cited 228 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores

  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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n

    473 U.S. 61 (1985)   Cited 53 times
    Explaining that collective bargaining agreement cannot seek "to achieve union objectives outside the primary employer-employee relationship"

  5. 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

  6. Providence Hosp. v. N.L.R.B

    93 F.3d 1012 (1st Cir. 1996)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that where, inter alia, the employer distributed written information about a merger, including some workplace changes such as "broad hints that it already had formulated some ideas relative to future staffing of the new system" and its expected regulatory approval, "[u]nder the totality of the circumstances that existed here—especially the employer's expressed confidence that the merger would take place soon and the emphasis in its handouts on the reallocation of personnel," substantial evidence supported the Board's order requiring disclosure of merger-related documents

  7. United States Testing Co. v. N.L.R.B

    160 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 1998)   Cited 18 times
    Rejecting employer's contention that it had insufficient notice regarding the potential relevance of a union request for individual insurance claims information because "context is everything," and the employer "put on the table" the concern of growing health care costs

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Rockwell-Standard, Trans. Axle

    410 F.2d 953 (6th Cir. 1969)   Cited 44 times

    No. 18651. May 29, 1969. Leonard M. Wagman, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Neal J. Conway, Atty., Washington, D.C., on brief. Leonard L. Scheinholtz, Pittsburgh, Pa., for respondent, Jonathan L. Alder, Reed, Smith, Shaw McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., on brief. Before PHILLIPS, EDWARDS and PECK, Circuit Judges. Judge Edwards took no part in the consideration of decision of this case

  9. Mary Thompson Hosp. v. N.L.R.B

    943 F.2d 741 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that a union was entitled to a sales and transfer agreement "in order to verify the data it obtained through alternative sources"

  10. N.L.R.B. v. U.S. Postal Service

    888 F.2d 1568 (11th Cir. 1989)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that an employer violates the NLRA when it fails “to provide information that is needed by the bargaining representative for the proper performance of its duties”