§

United Parcel Service of America, Inc.

28-CA-019582 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 8, 2005)
United Parcel Service of America, Inc.

6 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.

    369 U.S. 404 (1962)   Cited 298 times
    Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

  3. Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

    379 U.S. 21 (1964)   Cited 106 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

  4. Garment Workers v. Quality Mfg. Co.

    420 U.S. 276 (1975)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that because the employer “failed to file a petition for reconsideration as permitted by Board Rules and Regulations,” the employer could not assert its objection on appeal

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thor Power Tool Co.

    351 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1965)   Cited 68 times
    Concluding that "when the entire record is considered there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that [employee's] discharge was the result of his having presented a grievance to the management" even though employee was overheard referring to company's superintendent as "the horse's ass" and was thereafter summarily discharged

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Illinois Tool Works

    153 F.2d 811 (7th Cir. 1946)   Cited 47 times
    Noting that the test for violations of sec. 8, now codified as sec. 8, of the NLRA is whether "the employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act," and that actual or successful coercion need not be shown in order for the Board to find a violation