HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022304.jpg
4.1 MB
Extraction Summary
12
People
20
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Federal register publication (rules and regulations)
File Size:
4.1 MB
Summary
This document is a page from the Federal Register dated August 30, 2011, detailing the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) rules regarding an employer's failure to post employee rights notices. It discusses why this failure is an unfair labor practice and justifies the equitable tolling of the six-month statute of limitations for filing charges when required notices are not posted. Despite the prompt's framing, the document's content is entirely about U.S. labor law and has no connection to Jeffrey Epstein; the footer 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022304' is a Bates number, likely indicating it was an exhibit in a congressional document production.
People (12)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Irwin | Litigant |
Party in the legal case Irwin v. Dep't Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 94–96 (1990).
|
| Zipes | Litigant |
Party in the legal case Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 392–98 (1982).
|
| Young | Litigant |
Party in the legal case Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43, 49 (2002).
|
| Hallstrom | Litigant |
Party in the legal case Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 27 (1989).
|
| Honda | Litigant |
Party in the legal case Honda v. Clark, 386 U.S. 484, 501 (1967).
|
| Clark | Litigant |
Party in the legal case Honda v. Clark, 386 U.S. 484, 501 (1967).
|
| Glus | Litigant |
Party in the legal case Glus v. Brooklyn E.D. Terminal, 359 U.S. 231, 232–33 (1959).
|
| Holmberg | Litigant |
Party in the legal case Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396–97 (1946).
|
| Armbrecht | Litigant |
Party in the legal case Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396–97 (1946).
|
| Mercado | Litigant |
Party in the legal case Mercado v. Ritz-Carlton San Juan Hotel, 410 F.3d 41, 47–48 (1st Cir. 2005).
|
| Bonham | Litigant |
Party in the legal case Bonham v. Dresser Industries, 569 F.2d 187, 193 (1977).
|
| Hammer | Litigant |
Party in the legal case Hammer v. Cardio Medical Products, Inc., 131 Fed. Appx. 829 (3d Cir. 2005).
|
Organizations (20)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) | ||
| Michigan Health & Hospital Association | ||
| Fireside Distributors, Inc. | ||
| The Heritage Foundation | ||
| California Chamber | ||
| NCAE | ||
| St Mar Enterprises, Inc. | ||
| National Federation of Independent Business | ||
| U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | ||
| U.S. Court of Appeals (First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits) | ||
| U.S. Supreme Court | ||
| U.S. Congress | ||
| Dep't Veterans Affairs | ||
| Trans World Airlines, Inc. | ||
| Tillamook County | ||
| Brooklyn E.D. Terminal | ||
| Dresser Industries | ||
| Ritz-Carlton San Juan Hotel | ||
| Cardio Medical Products, Inc. | ||
| House Oversight Committee (inferred from footer) |
Timeline (2 events)
2011-08-30
Publication of 'Rules and Regulations' by the National Labor Relations Board in the Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 168.
Federal Register
National Labor Relations Board
Discussion of the legal principle of 'equitable tolling' for the statute of limitations under NLRA Section 10(b), particularly when an employer fails to post required notices of employee rights.
National Labor Relations Board
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Tillamook County
|
|
Relationships (3)
Employer
→
Legal relationship under NLRA
→
Employee
The document discusses employer obligations to post notices of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The Heritage Foundation urged a different approach for inadvertent failures to post notices, but 'The Board disagrees.'
California Chamber
→
Advocacy/Contention
→
National Labor Relations Board
The California Chamber and NCAE contended that the Board should specify its 'reasonable efforts' and proposed an amendment to the rule.
Key Quotes (5)
"...the Regional Director will make reasonable efforts to persuade the respondent employer to post the * * * notice expeditiously..."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022304.jpg
Quote #1
"...no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board[.]"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022304.jpg
Quote #2
"[t]he [ADEA] posting requirement was undoubtedly created because Congress recognized that the very persons protected by the Act might be unaware of its existence."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022304.jpg
Quote #3
"It is hornbook law that limitations periods are customarily subject to equitable tolling, unless tolling would be inconsistent with the text of the relevant statute."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022304.jpg
Quote #4
"[T]he time requirement for filing an unfair labor practice charge under the National Labor Relations Act operates as a statute of limitations subject to recognized equitable doctrines and not as a restriction of the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022304.jpg
Quote #5
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document