Search for: "United Electrical v. Nlrb"
Results 1 - 20
of 50
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jan 2009, 11:37 am
Oral Argument in case: 08-2724; United Electrical v. [read post]
11 Dec 2006, 1:10 pm
The judge found that the Respondent was a "perfectly clear" successor within the meaning of NLRB v. [read post]
13 Jul 2007, 4:27 pm
[www.nlrb.gov] A Board panel unanimously found, contrary to the administrative law judge's decision dismissing the complaint in its entirety, that AG Communications Systems Corporation (AG) and Lucent Technologies: (1) comprised a single employer; (2) that as a single employer it was not required to bargain over its management decision to integrate a bargaining unit of AG employees represented by Electrical Workers IBEW Local 21 (IBEW Local 21) into… [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 6:55 am
Further, the Board’s finding that the company’s unit clarification petition—filed more than four months after execution of the new contract—was untimely was supported by substantial evidence, said the court, denying the company’s petition to review (Dixie Electric Membership Corp. v. [read post]
12 May 2009, 12:52 pm
The judge, applying NLRB v. [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 4:33 pm
See Metta Electric, 338 NLRB 1059 (2003) (Metta I), enfd. 360 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 2004). [read post]
18 Oct 2006, 5:26 pm
Charges filed by Electrical Workers IBEW Local 2; complaint alleged violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3). [read post]
16 Apr 2010, 11:04 am
On March 23, 2010, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in New Process Steel v. [read post]
10 Aug 2007, 3:03 pm
Bill's Electric, Inc. (17-CA-18629-1, et al: 350 NLRB No. 31) Webb City, MO July 24, 2007. [read post]
17 Jul 2008, 6:48 pm
NLRB - Staff summarized 9 decisions. [read post]
28 Aug 2006, 10:29 am
The majority noted that the judge issued his decision before the Supreme Court issued its decision in NLRB v. [read post]
9 Jan 2007, 9:08 am
See Crossroads Electric, Inc., 343 NLRB 1 [read post]
13 Apr 2007, 12:12 pm
Instead, he concluded that the Respondent's unilateral action was unlawful because the Respondent hired a workforce consisting solely of its predecessor's Union-represented employees and that the Respondent was a "perfectly clear" successor within the meaning of NLRB v. [read post]
18 Oct 2008, 11:33 pm
The Board also adopted the judges' finding that a Gissel bargaining order was necessary and warranted under NLRB v. [read post]
9 Aug 2008, 4:45 am
NLRB, 703 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1983) and distinguished the facts in this case from Nathan Katz Reality LLC v. [read post]
29 Jul 2016, 10:12 am
Supreme Court in NLRB v. [read post]
12 Feb 2007, 8:09 am
NLRB v. [read post]
29 Aug 2007, 10:22 am
" Ross Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Sep 2007, 10:14 pm
[the Respondent's] control," as required under NLRB v. [read post]
12 Oct 2007, 9:14 am
v. [read post]
