The Fafnir Bearing Company v. National Labor Relations Board (1966)
green
· 38 citation events
across 10 courts.
Showing the 13 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
196619962026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Hercules, Incorporated v. National Labor Relations Board, International Chemical Workers Union Local 271, Afl… (1987)
This duty encompasses an obligation “to provide relevant information to union representatives so that they can effectively bargain on behalf of their members.” Fafnir Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 716, 721 (2d Cir.1966).
green
National Labor Relations Board v. Leonard B. Hebert, Jr. & Co., Inc. And Landis Construction Co., Inc. (1983)
We believe that the letters set forth sufficient background information about the focus and nature of the Union's inquiry to put the employer/addressee on notice of the basis of the Union's suspicion concerning double breasting 4 See Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. at 438 n. 8, 87 S.Ct. at 569 n. 8, quoting Fafnir Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 716, 721 (2d Cir.1966) ("By preventing the Union from conducting these studies [for an intelligent appraisal of its right to grieve], t…
Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 708 , 103 S.Ct. 1467 , 75 L.Ed.2d 387 (1983), and ordinarily cannot be inferred from silence, Fafnir Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 716, 722 (2d Cir.1966).
Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 708 , 103 S.Ct. 1467 , 75 L.Ed.2d 387 (1983), and ordinarily cannot be inferred from silence, Fafnir Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 716, 722 (2d Cir.1966).
green
The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Board, and Communications Workers of… (1982)
Fafnir Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 716, 722 (2d Cir. 1966).
green
San Diego Newspaper Guild, Local No. 95 of Newspaper Guild, Afl-Cio, Clc v. National Labor Relations Board (1977)
Wkrs. v. NLRB, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 284 , 455 F.2d 1357 , 1364-65 (1971); Fafnir Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 716, 721 (2d Cir. 1966). 16 When the Union requests information and the employer refuses, there arises the issue of who has the initial burden of proof as to the relevance of the information.
App. 1971); Fafnir Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 716, 721 (2d Cir. 1966). 7 All of the examinees in Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 , 99 S. Ct. 1123 , 59 L.
green
Local Union 36, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board (2013)
See Fafnir Bearing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 716 , 722 (2d Cir.1966) (relying upon the “clear and unmistakable waiver” rule (quotation marks omitted)); Fayer v. Town of Middlebury, 258 F.3d 117, 122-23 (2d Cir.2001) (reiterating that waiver of a statutory right must be “clear and unmistakable”); see also In re Tide Water Assoc.
See Fafnir Bearing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 716 , 722 (2d Cir. 1966) (relying upon the “clear and unmistakable waiver” rule (quotation marks omitted)); Fayer v. Town of Middlebury, 258 F.3d 117 , 122–23 (2d Cir. 2001) (reiterating that waiver of a statutory right must be “clear and unmistakable”); see also In re Tide Water Assoc.
relying upon the “clear and unmistakable waiver” rule (quotation marks omitted)
green
McGraw Company v. National Labor Relations Board, Local 257, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,… (1969)
See Fafnir Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 716 (2 Cir.1966).
See, e. g., Fafnir Bearing Co. v. NLRB, supra, 362 F.2d at 722 ; Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 325 F.2d 746, 750-751 , 2 A.L.R.3d 868 (6 Cir. 1963), cert. den., 376 U.S. 971 , 84 S.Ct. 1135 , 12 L.Ed.2d 85 (1964).
See Fafnir Bearing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 362 F.2d 716 (2d Cir. 1966); National Labor Relations Board v. Lake Superior Lumber Corp., 167 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1948); National Labor Relations Board v. Cities Service Oil Co., 122 F.2d 149 (2d Cir. 1941).
green
Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. Superior Court (1976)
No. 110: see also Fafnir Bearing Company v. N.L.R.B. (2d Cir.1966) 362 F.2d 716 , 722 (company ordered to allow union to enter premises to conduct independent time studies).) [9] *409 Thus the rule of Babcock & Wilcox, both as enunciated and as applied, is clear: if the circumstances of employment "place the employees beyond the reach of reasonable union efforts to communicate with them, the employer must allow the union to approach his employees on his property. " (Italics …