Case law

Local 666 v. National Labor Relations Board

904 F.2d 47 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 29, 1990

Boise Cascade Corp. v. … Fibreboard Corp. v.

Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

88 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 11, 1996

88 F.3d 1064 319 U.S.App.D.C. 1 DIAMOND WALNUT GROWERS, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

Puerto Rico Steamship Association v. National Labor Relations Board

281 F.2d 615 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 23, 1960

B. v. … We recognize the following holding of the Supreme Court in National Labor Relations Board v.

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Civil Aeronautics Board

667 F.2d 181 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 30, 1981

See Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. … Pilots Ass’n, Internat’l v.

No. 93-1767

50 F.3d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 7, 1995

Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co., 312 N.L.R.B. 444 , 445, 1993 WL 382495 (1993) ("Brown & Sharpe II") (quoting Fitzgerald v. Seamans, 553 F.2d 220, 228 (D.C.Cir.1977)). … See, e.g., Hohri v.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

913 F.2d 976 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 14, 1990

PER CURIAM: The Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB” or “Board”) petitions for review of a decision and order entered by the Federal Labor Relations Authority (“FLRA” or “Authority”) requiring the Board to engage in collective … National Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, 848 F.2d 1273, 1275 (D.C.Cir.1988). The Authority’s interpretation of OPM regulations is therefore subject to de novo review. Id.

Local 164, Brotherhood of Painters v. National Labor Relations Board

293 F.2d 133 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 27, 1961

National Labor *135 Relations Board v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corp., 1958, 856 U.S. 342 , 349, 78 S.Ct. 718 , 2 L.Ed.2d 823 . … Textile Workers of America v.

VIP Health Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

164 F.3d 644 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 12, 1999

See Beverly Enterprises- Pennsylvania, Inc. v. NLRB, 129 F.3d 1269, 1270 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (citing NLRB v. Health Care & Retire- ment Corp., 511 U.S. 571, 573-74 (1994)). … If VIP is correct, the Board approved an inappropriate bargaining unit because supervisors are excluded from the NLRA's collective bargaining protections. See 29 U.S.C. s 152(3); Beverly Enterprises v.

Kohler Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

345 F.2d 748 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 20, 1965

, and whether any of the 77 strikers denied reinstatement by the Board should be reinstated in light of the principles enunciated in National Labor Relations Board v. … The Board properly applied the principles announced in our initial decision, and its determinations are supported by substantial evidence on the record viewed as a whole, Universal Camera Corp. v.

Singletary, Charles v. DC Bd Par

452 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 7, 2006

Before: SENTELLE and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge.  2 Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge BROWN. … See also Gagnon v.

International Union, United Mine Workers v. National Labor Relations Board

468 F.2d 1139 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 2, 1972

We therefore remanded the case to the Board for further consideration. Lewis v. NLRB, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 18 , 350 F.2d 801 (1965). … The union’s petition for review (No. 21,129) and the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement (No. 21,226) were then consolidated in this court, and in Int. Union, United Mine Workers v.

M & M Backhoe Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

469 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 1, 2006

See NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 596-98 (1969). … As the Board recognized, it “may not make findings or order remedies on violations not charged in the . . . complaint or litigated in the subsequent hearing.” Chicago Local No. 458-3M v. NLRB, 206 F.3d 22, 24 n.1 (D.C.

Peoples Gas System, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

629 F.2d 35 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 2, 1980

Accordingly I would deny enforcement of the Board’s cease and desist order.

Bennett v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.

37 F.2d 811 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 6, 1930

It also denied •that either the Fleet Corporation or the Shipping Board held any fund for the benefit of the plaintiffs (appellants). … On direct examination this witness testified that “in several cases wages were jumped at Newburgh when the officials of Newburgh Shipyards, Inc., did not want to have them jumped; that the board called the Maey Board made

Wilson v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

863 F.3d 876 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 21, 2017

See id. at 1166 (citing Gray v. N. Star Mining, Inc., 27 FMSHRC 1 , 11 (Jan. 12, 2005), and Multi-Ad Servs., Inc. v. NLRB, 255 F.3d 363, 372 (7th Cir. 2001)). … Like the Board, the Commission applies an objective standard, and the ALJ here offered no persuasive reason for departing from that understanding of the interference test.

United Parcel Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

92 F.3d 1221 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 20, 1996

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Surface Transportation Board

568 F.3d 236 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 2009

They are correct that in Darby v. … Given that, the Board hardly acted arbitrarily in failing to consider that point. V.

United Steelworkers of America v. National Labor Relations Board

376 F.2d 770 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 24, 1967

The Union’s petition to review is denied, and the Board’s petition to enforce is granted. So ordered. . In Local 57, ILGWU (Garwin Corp.) v. … Compare FCC v.

Continental Resources, Inc. v. Sally Jewell

846 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 31, 2017

United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. … We have held that in some instances the litigant must personally receive the notice, Bell v. Brown, 557 F.2d 849, 857 (D.C. Cir. 1977), while receipt by the litigant’s attorney sufficed in others, Rao v.

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board

334 F.2d 581 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 7, 1964

Involved is the validity of an order of the National Labor Relations Board entered after usual administrative proceedings within the agency. … We think the evidence did not require the Board to uphold the Union’s claim in this respect.