Citation network
Metropolitan Edison Co. Vs. Nlrb
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 04, 1983
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 693 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
U.S. 693 (1983) Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NationalSearch
-
union members and that the employer's action is likely to discourage participation in union activities. See NLRB v. BrownSearch
-
to make unlawful all acts that might have the effect of discouraging union membership. See American Ship Building Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
Rather, the intention was to forbid only those acts that are motivated by an antiunion animus. See, e.g., NLRB v. GreatSearch
-
NLRB v. BrownSearch
-
See NLRB v. ErieSearch
-
the true motive. In these situations, the Court has divided an employer's conduct into two classes. See NLRB v. GreatSearch
-
it carries with it a strong inference of impermissible motive. See id. at 388 U. S. 33 ( quoting NLRB v. BrownSearch
-
Congress Page 460 U. S. 702 has entrusted this determination in the first instance to the Board, see NLRB v. ErieSearch
-
of the Act. See Radio Officers v. NLRBSearch
-
unilateral imposition of discipline on union officials inhibits qualified employees from holding office, see Szewczuga v. NLRBSearch
-
NLRB v. GreatSearch
-
the terms of the contract and to set a responsible example for their members. See Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
wildcat strikes, the importance of ensuring compliance with no-strike clauses is self-evident. See Boys Markets, Inc. v. RetailSearch
-
General Building Contractors Assn. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U. S. 375 , 458 U. S. 394 (1982) (quoting NLRB v. InsuranceSearch
-
See Florida Power & Light Co. v. ElectricalSearch
-
NLRB v. Allis-ChalmersSearch
-
NLRB v. MagnavoxSearch
-
Co., 415 U. S. 322 , 415 U. S. 325 (1974) (quoting Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRBSearch
-
NLRB v. Allis-ChalmersSearch
-
rights that impair the employees' choice of Page 460 U. S. 706 their bargaining representative. See NLRB v. MagnavoxSearch
-
In Ford Motor Co. v. HuffmanSearch
-
No-strike provisions, central to national labor policy, often have proved difficult to enforce. See Boys Markets, Inc. v. RetailSearch
-
that the grievance-arbitration procedure forms an integral part of the collective bargaining process. See Clayton v. AutomobileSearch
-
Steelworkers v. WarriorSearch
-
been defined, of course, will require consideration of the specific circumstances of each case. Cf. Carbon Fuel Co. v. MineSearch
-
a)(1). See Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
cases where an employee contends that an employer's otherwise legitimate act masks an impermissible purpose. See NLRB v. TransportationSearch
-
and the Board's position has been upheld by almost every Court of Appeals that has considered this question. See NLRB v. SouthSearch
-
Szewczuga v. NLRBSearch
-
C. H. Heist Corp. v. NLRBSearch
-
F.2d 178, 182-183 (CA7 1981) (distinguishing Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
F.2d 227 (CA7 1979)). But cf. NLRB v. Armour-DialSearch
-
s decision that foremen could constitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining, see Packard Motor Car Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
U. S. 485 (1947), Congress responded by excluding supervisors from the coverage of the Act. See NLRB v. BellSearch
-
Florida Power & Light Co. v. ElectricalSearch
-
Appeals that have considered this question have agreed that this statutory protection may be waived. See, e.g., NLRB v. SouthSearch
-
Fournelle v. NLRBSearch
-
Gould, Inc. v. NLRBSearch
-
C. H. Hest Corp. v. NLRBSearch
-
The union contends that Alexander v. Gardner-DenverSearch
-
waiver of a protected right must be expressed clearly and unmistakably. See, e.g., Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
NLRB v. SouthernSearch
-
Communication Workers of America, Local 1051 v. NLRBSearch
-
F.2d 923, 927 (CA1 1981). The holding in Teamsters v. LucasSearch
-
that situation only because of the unique conjunction between arbitraton and no-strike clauses. Cf. Gateway Coal Co. v. MineSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRBSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial