HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022285.jpg
3.95 MB
Extraction Summary
0
People
10
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Federal register publication on rules and regulations
File Size:
3.95 MB
Summary
This document is a page from the Federal Register dated August 30, 2011, in which the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) defends its legal authority to implement a rule requiring employers to post notices of employee rights. The Board refutes arguments from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other organizations by distinguishing the proposed rule from Supreme Court precedents like Teamsters 357 and Lechmere. The document has no discernible connection to Jeffrey Epstein; it is a legal analysis of U.S. labor law.
Organizations (10)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Chamber of Commerce |
Submitted a comment questioning the consistency of an NLRB proposal with the Supreme Court's decision in Teamsters 357.
|
|
| International Brotherhood of Teamsters |
Party in the Supreme Court case Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. NLRB (1961), which is central to...
|
|
| National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) |
The federal agency whose rulemaking and legal interpretations are the subject of the document. It is defending its au...
|
|
| Center on National Labor Policy, Inc. |
Argued that the NLRB's proposed rule infringes on employers' First Amendment property rights, citing the Lechmere case.
|
|
| Portland Cement Association (PCA) |
Commented that the NLRB's failure to provide free access to cited law review articles was 'arbitrary and capricious'.
|
|
| Radio Officers' Union |
Party in the Supreme Court case Radio Officers' Union v. NLRB (1954), cited as precedent.
|
|
| Sears, Roebuck & Co. |
Party in the Supreme Court case Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Dist. Council of Carpenters (1978), cited as preced...
|
|
| San Diego Dist. Council of Carpenters |
Party in the Supreme Court case Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Dist. Council of Carpenters (1978), cited as preced...
|
|
| Thunder Basin Coal Co. |
Party in the Supreme Court case Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich (1994), cited as precedent.
|
|
| Lechmere, Inc. |
Party in the Supreme Court case Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB (1992), cited as precedent.
|
Timeline (3 events)
1961
Supreme Court case: Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. NLRB. The court rejected the NLRB's finding that a union's exclusive hiring hall was an unfair labor practice.
U.S. Supreme Court
1992
Supreme Court case: Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB. The decision is cited in an argument regarding an employer's property rights.
U.S. Supreme Court
2011-08-30
Publication of the NLRB's 'Rules and Regulations' in the Federal Register, responding to comments on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding a notice-posting rule for employers.
NLRB
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of a union's access to communicate with employees.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the discussion of the Lechmere case regarding 'trespassory organizational activity' by nonemployees.
|
Relationships (3)
The Chamber of Commerce submitted a comment opposing the NLRB's proposed rule, and the NLRB provides a detailed rebuttal in this document.
NLRB
→
Adversarial / Legal Disagreement
→
Center on National Labor Policy, Inc.
The Center argued against the NLRB's authority, and the Board rejects their argument in the document.
NLRB
→
Adversarial / Procedural Disagreement
→
Portland Cement Association (PCA)
The PCA criticized the NLRB's rulemaking process as 'arbitrary and capricious' for not providing free access to cited materials.
Key Quotes (3)
""[w]here * * * Congress has aimed its sanctions only at specific discriminatory practices, the Board cannot go farther and establish a broader, more pervasive regulatory scheme.""Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022285.jpg
Quote #1
""'does not outlaw all encouragement or discouragement of membership in labor organizations; only such as is accomplished by discrimination is prohibited.'""Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022285.jpg
Quote #2
""if a union has no access to company property to communicate with employees, neither does the Board without Section 10(c) authority.""Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022285.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document