§

Thomas Steel Co.

281 N.L.R.B. 389 (N.L.R.B. 1986)
Thomas Steel Co.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    461 U.S. 731 (1983)   Cited 978 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law

  2. 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

  3. 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."

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Interboro Contractors, Inc.

    388 F.2d 495 (2d Cir. 1967)   Cited 80 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Interboro Contractors, Inc., 388 F.2d 495, 500 (2d Cir. 1967), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that the efforts of an individual employee acting alone to enforce the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement may be deemed "concerted," and thus protected, at least when the individual's interpretation of the agreement has a reasonable basis.

  5. Socony Mobil Oil Co. v. N.L.R.B

    357 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1966)   Cited 18 times
    In Socony Mobile Oil Co. v. NLRB, 357 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1966), the issue was raised of suspension of an employee for presenting a complaint to a governmental regulatory body.

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Texas Natural

    253 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1958)   Cited 4 times

    No. 16665. March 18, 1958. Stephen Leonard, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., William J. Avrutis, Atty., Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. C.A. Kothe, W.H. Eyssen, Jr., Tulsa, Okla., for respondent. Before TUTTLE, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges. JONES, Circuit Judge. Since so much in this case is dependent upon the factual situation, it becomes necessary to relate the chain of events in some detail. The respondent, Texas