Case law

Fashion Valley Mall, LLC. v. National Labor Relations Board

451 F.3d 241 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 16, 2006

We enforce a Board order if the factual findings upon which it rests are supported by “substantial evidence,” see United States Testing Co. v. … When the Board has occasion to interpret state law, however, our review is ordinarily de novo. See Cellwave Tel. Servs. L.P. v.

First Transit, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

22 F. App'x 3 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 17, 2001

JUDGMENT This appeal was considered on the record from the National Labor Relations Board and on the briefs filed by the par *4 ties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. … Because First Transit did not present to the National Labor Relations Board the arguments it now presents to the court, the court is without jurisdiction to consider First Transit’s arguments, as provided in § 10(e) of the

International Transportation Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

449 F.3d 160 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 2, 2006

ITS pressed the Board to abandon Vila-Barr in light of a Seventh Circuit case that questioned its correctness, see Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. … Cleveland Constr., Inc. v. NLRB, 44 F.3d 1010, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1995). The Board must provide “a reasoned explanation” for its decisions. Petroleum Comm. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 1164 , 1172 (D.C.Cir.1994).

ABM Onsite Services-West, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

849 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 7, 2017

Trainmen v. … Because an agency’s unexplained departure from precedent is arbitrary and capricious, we must vacate the Board’s order. Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 526 F.3d 763, 769 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citing Pontchartrain Broad. Co. v.

E.N. Bisso & Son, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

84 F.3d 1443 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 1996

.”); Boire v. … Clothing Workers of America v.

Rail-Term Corp. v. Surface Transportation Board

654 F. App'x 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 8, 2015

Petitioner has not shown that the Surface Transportation Board reopened proceedings and issued a new and final order. See Am. Ass’n of Paging Carriers v. FCC, 442 F.3d 751, 756 (D.C. … See ICC v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270, 278 , 107 S.Ct. 2360 , 96 L.Ed.2d 222 (1987).

National Labor Relations Board v. Sagamore Shirt Company

401 F.2d 925 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 28, 1968

Wkrs., etc. v. N.L.R.B. … Such activities furnished a permissible basis for a Board inference adverse to the Company's good faith in refusing to recognize the Union. Joy Silk Mills v.

Terrace Gardens Plaza, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

91 F.3d 222 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 9, 1996

Compare NLRB v. … See NLRB v.

Waterbury Hotel Management, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board

314 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Labor Relations Board Scott V. … See Saks & Co. v.

World Color (USA) Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

776 F.3d 17 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 16, 2015

National Labor Relations Board Ronald J. … Bally’s Park Place, Inc. v. NLRB, 646 F.3d 929, 935 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. NLRB, 879 F.2d 939, 942 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Audrea Jones v. District of Columbia Armory Board

438 F.2d 138 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 2, 1970

In Adderley v. … Women Strike for Peace v. Hickel, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 29 , 420 F.2d 597, 603 (1970).

Chritton v. National Transportation Safety Board

888 F.2d 854 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 27, 1989

As the Board held in Administrator v. Christopherson, NTSB Order No. … Administrator v. Austin, 2 N.T.S.B. at 663-664. 45 The Board also correctly concluded that "[Mr.

Restaurant Corporation of America v. National Labor Relations Board

827 F.2d 799 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 25, 1987

See Midwest Regional Joint Board v. NLRB, 564 F.2d 434 , 446 (D.C.Cir.1977); William L. Bonnell Co. v. NLRB, 405 F.2d 593, 595 (5th Cir.1969). … See Midwest Regional Joint Board v. NLRB, supra, at 442.

Verizon New England Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

826 F.3d 480 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 2016

Plumbers & Pipefitters, 955 F.2d at 750 ; American Freight System Inc. v. NLRB, 722 F.2d 828, 832 (D.C. Cir. 1983). 2 Here, the Board should have upheld the arbitration decision. … Cir. 1994) (quoting United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597 , 80 S.Ct. 1358 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960)); see also National Postal Mail Handlers Union v.

Leeward Auto Wreckers, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

841 F.2d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 11, 1988

Cinciarelli v. Reagan, 729 F.2d 801, 804-05 (D.C.Cir.1984) (partial awards are contemplated under EAJA). … Federal Election Commission v. Rose, 806 F.2d 1081, 1090 (D.C.Cir.1986). 7 .

Brusco Tug & Barge Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

247 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 1, 2001

Care, Inc. v. NLRB, 193 F.3d 444, 453 (6th Cir. 1999). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the viability of the Board's expert employee approach, NLRB v. Ky. River Comty. … Co. v.

Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. National Mediation Board

996 F.2d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 23, 1993

Phoenix Transit System v. National Labor Relations Board

63 F. App'x 524 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 14, 2003

The Board has “considerable discretion in deciding whether to defer to an arbitration decision,” but must follow the standards of deference found in its own case law, American Freight Sys., Inc. v. … Austin, 418 U.S. 264 , 94 S.Ct. 2770 , 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974); Linn v.

SSC Mystic Operating Co., LLC v. National Labor Relations Board

801 F.3d 302 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 18, 2015

Ryerson & Son, Inc. v. … Id. at 907 n. 3 (quoting Turner’s Express, Inc. v.

Charles Nasem v. Honorable Harold Brown, Secretary of the Department of Defense

595 F.2d 801 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 10, 1979

This time the Army appointed a Board of Inquiry (Board) to investigate the reprisal charge. … The Board re-examined the allegations of reprisal reviewed in the April 10, 1975 OFEEO decision, as well as additional allegations made in the two May letters. The Board found that there had been no reprisal.