United Site Services of California, Inc.
13 Cited authorities
Belknap, Inc. v. Hale
463 U.S. 491 (1983) Cited 277 timesHolding that the NLRA does not preempt state law contract actions by replacement workers to enforce terms of an employment contract
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.
388 U.S. 26 (1967) Cited 322 times 8 Legal AnalysesHolding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.
389 U.S. 375 (1967) Cited 233 timesIn Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.
SCM Corp. v. Advance Business Systems & Supply Co.
397 U.S. 920 (1970) Cited 200 times 5 Legal AnalysesUpholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Van Lines
409 U.S. 48 (1972) Cited 71 timesHolding that a statement that striking employees "are being permanently replaced" constituted an unlawful discharge when permanent replacements had not been hired
Laidlaw Corporation v. N.L.R.B
414 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1969) Cited 81 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list
New England Health Care Union v. N.L.R.B
448 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 10 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding that the employer “made a conscious decision to tell the Union nothing about the hiring of permanent replacements, and took active measures to keep the replacement campaign a secret while hiring as many permanent replacements as it could before the Union caught on,” and noting that the employer described the plan as a “well-executed surprise event” that had “[the Union] in a real bind,” and informed a temp agency that “its plans regarding permanent replacements were to be kept ‘hush-hush’ ”
H. & F. Binch Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
456 F.2d 357 (2d Cir. 1972) Cited 22 timesEnlarging reinstatement rights of economic strikers
National Labor Rel. Board v. Betts Baking Co.
428 F.2d 156 (10th Cir. 1970) Cited 11 timesIn N.L.R.B. v. Betts Baking Co., 428 F.2d 156, 159 (10th Cir. 1970), the court wrote that the offer was valid despite the time restriction because "[w]e think that [the employee's] failure to complain of the time limitation precludes him from complaining of the reasonableness of the reporting time."
Fulkerson v. Kilgore
10 Okla. 655 (Okla. 1901) Cited 3 timesFiled February 8, 1901. 1. WITNESS — Competency of Wife. Under the laws of this Territory a wife may testify in a case in which her husband is a party, where she acted as the agent of her husband, concerning the transaction which is the subject matter of the suit, but the fact of such agency must be established before the testimony is offered, and if the fact of such agency is not so established, it is not error for the court to sustain an objection to the testimony of the wife. 2. ACTION UNDER MECHANIC'S
Section 158 - Unfair labor practices
29 U.S.C. § 158 Cited 10,333 times 86 Legal AnalysesGranting employees a wage increase without bargaining with Local 355
Section 157 - Right of employees as to organization, collective bargaining, etc.
29 U.S.C. § 157 Cited 3,311 times 97 Legal AnalysesGranting "employees" the right to unionize
Section 163 - Right to strike preserved
29 U.S.C. § 163 Cited 116 timesPreserving the right to strike