Meyers Industries, Inc.

22 Cited authorities

Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.
415 U.S. 36 (1974) Cited 2,877 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that workers may bring Title VII discrimination claims in federal court notwithstanding an arbitration provision in a CBA
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts
471 U.S. 724 (1985) Cited 1,519 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Labor Relations Act does not permit “unions and employers to bargain for terms of employment that state law forbids employers to establish unilaterally”
Sure-Tan, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
467 U.S. 883 (1984) Cited 416 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that NLRB could order reinstatement with back pay as a remedy for constructive discharge
Labor Board v. Laughlin
301 U.S. 1 (1937) Cited 1,499 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.
465 U.S. 822 (1984) Cited 206 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection
Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
437 U.S. 556 (1978) Cited 196 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity
Auto. Workers v. Wis. Board
336 U.S. 245 (1949) Cited 209 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that issuance of injunction by state labor relations authority that orders state employees back to work does not violate Thirteenth Amendment because employees had the right to quit employment
Amer. Foundries v. Tri-City Council
257 U.S. 184 (1921) Cited 341 times
Holding that the Clayton Act's provisions on injunctive relief applied to pending cases
Southern S.S. Co. v. Labor Board
316 U.S. 31 (1942) Cited 160 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding an abuse of discretion where the National Labor Relations Board sought to fulfill one congressional objective but “wholly ignore[d] other and equally important Congressional objectives”
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."
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,092 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

Meyers Industries, Inc.

22 Cited authorities

Holding that workers may bring Title VII discrimination claims in federal court notwithstanding an arbitration provision in a CBA

Holding that the National Labor Relations Act does not permit “unions and employers to bargain for terms of employment that state law forbids employers to establish unilaterally”

Holding that NLRB could order reinstatement with back pay as a remedy for constructive discharge

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

Holding that issuance of injunction by state labor relations authority that orders state employees back to work does not violate Thirteenth Amendment because employees had the right to quit employment

Holding that the Clayton Act's provisions on injunctive relief applied to pending cases

Finding an abuse of discretion where the National Labor Relations Board sought to fulfill one congressional objective but “wholly ignore[d] other and equally important Congressional objectives”

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."

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"