National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Employers
|
Regulatory |
10
Very Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
AFL-CIO, SEIU, FMI, COLLE, California Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
|
Regulatory process participant |
7
|
1 | |
|
location
Supreme Court
|
Regulatory judicial |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Assisted Living Federation of America (ALFA)
|
Adversarial in rulemaking context |
7
|
1 | |
|
organization
Baker & McKenzie
|
Regulator commenter |
7
|
1 | |
|
organization
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
|
Adversarial in rulemaking context |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Brian E. Hayes
|
Dissenting member |
7
|
1 | |
|
organization
ALFA
|
Commenter agency |
7
|
1 | |
|
organization
Baker & McKenzie
|
Commenter agency |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
National Immigration Law Center
|
Commenter agency |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Member Hayes
|
Unknown |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Various Organizations (AHCA, ALFA, etc.)
|
Adversarial public commentary |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Americans for Limited Government (ALG)
|
Adversarial |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Congress
|
Delegation of authority |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW)
|
Aligned |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Employers
|
Regulator regulated |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Buffalo Wild Wings, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, etc.
|
Commenter on proposed rule |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
U.S. Department of Labor
|
Policy adoption |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Various Organizations (e.g., U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO)
|
Regulatory rulemaking process |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Various Organizations (e.g., California Chamber, AFL-CIO)
|
Regulatory adversarial supportive |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
CIA
|
Aligned |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
MIT
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Public
|
Regulatory process |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Various organizations (COLLE, ALFA, Unions, Employer Groups)
|
Regulatory body and commenter |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Steelworkers
|
Submitted comment |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to mandate that employers post notices of employee rights under the... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) proposed a new rule requiring employers to post a notic... | United States | View |
| 2011-08-30 | N/A | The National Labor Relations Board published its final rule and response to public comments regar... | Federal Register, United St... | View |
| 2011-08-30 | N/A | The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published its final rule in the Federal Register regard... | Federal Register | View |
| 2011-08-30 | N/A | Publication of rules and regulations in the Federal Register, where the NLRB defends its rulemaki... | N/A | View |
| 2011-08-30 | N/A | The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published its final rule in the Federal Register regard... | Federal Register | View |
| 2011-08-30 | N/A | The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published its final rule and reasoning in the Federal R... | N/A (Publication) | View |
| 2011-08-30 | N/A | Publication of the National Labor Relations Board's Final Rule in the Federal Register, requiring... | Federal Register | View |
| 2011-08-30 | N/A | The NLRB published its final rule in the Federal Register regarding a notice of employee rights u... | N/A | View |
| 2011-08-30 | N/A | The NLRB reviewed public comments on its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the emplo... | N/A | View |
Proposed rule on equitable tolling of the 10(b) period.
Submitted comments to the NLRB (mentioned in footnote 147).
Proposed rule on equitable tolling of the 10(b) period.
Submitted comments asserting that tolling only applies in cases of fraudulent concealment (footnote 150) and opposing tolling for mere failure to post notice (footnote 151).
Proposed rule on equitable tolling of the 10(b) period.
Submitted comments arguing against tolling based on the military exception in Section 10(b) (footnote 152).
Statutory purpose of statutes of limitations.
Submitted comments contending that tolling the 10(b) period is contrary to the purpose of statutes of limitations (footnote 154).
Proposed rule on equitable tolling of the 10(b) period.
Submitted comments to the NLRB (mentioned in footnote 147).
Proposed rule on equitable tolling of the 10(b) period.
Submitted comments asserting that tolling only applies in cases of fraudulent concealment (footnote 150) and opposing tolling for mere failure to post notice (footnote 151).
Proposed rule on equitable tolling of the 10(b) period.
Submitted comments arguing against tolling based on the military exception in Section 10(b) (footnote 152).
Statutory purpose of statutes of limitations.
Submitted comments contending that tolling the 10(b) period is contrary to the purpose of statutes of limitations (footnote 154).
Proposed rule on equitable tolling of the 10(b) period.
Submitted comments to the NLRB (mentioned in footnote 147).
Proposed rule on equitable tolling of the 10(b) period.
Submitted comments asserting that tolling only applies in cases of fraudulent concealment (footnote 150) and opposing tolling for mere failure to post notice (footnote 151).
Proposed rule on equitable tolling of the 10(b) period.
Submitted comments arguing against tolling based on the military exception in Section 10(b) (footnote 152).
Statutory purpose of statutes of limitations.
Submitted comments contending that tolling the 10(b) period is contrary to the purpose of statutes of limitations (footnote 154).
Public comments submitted in response to a proposed rule ...
The document summarizes numerous comments received by the NLRB. Many comments from employees and labor organizations support the rule, arguing that a vast majority of workers, especially nonunion and immigrant workers, are unaware of their rights to organize and engage in concerted activities. Other comments, from entities like Baker and Daniels LLP, oppose the rule, predicting it will lead to increased unionization and unfair labor practice charges.
Comments on proposed rule for a notice of employee rights
The NLRB received thousands of comments on its proposed rule. Many were form letters or 'postcard' comments. Unions and some organizations generally supported the notice for promoting awareness of rights. Employer groups and other organizations opposed it, arguing it was unbalanced, promoted unionization, and oversimplified complex labor law.
Proposed Rule on Employee Rights Notice
Urged the NLRB to add language to the introduction of the notice about the right to refrain from union activity, arguing its omission showed a pro-union bias.
Proposed Rule on Employee Rights Notice
Favored the Board's language, stating it achieved an 'appropriate balance' between providing clear information and avoiding confusing details.
Proposed Rule on Employee Rights Notice
Argued the notice was biased toward union organizing and that the right to refrain from union activity should be more prominent.
Proposed Rule on Employee Rights Notice
Suggested revising the affirmative rights section to reflect an anti-union position, for example, by stating employees have the right to 'organize with other employees in opposition to a particular union or unions'.
Proposed Rule on Employee Rights Notice
Commented that the notice should include the consequences of exercising the right to organize, join, or form a union.
Final Rule on Employee Rights Notice
The document is a publication in the Federal Register explaining and justifying the final version of a rule requiring employers to post a notice of employee rights under the NLRA. It addresses public comments received on the proposed rule.
Comments on proposed employee rights notice
The document describes and responds to comments submitted by various parties regarding the content of the proposed employee rights notice. For example, critics contended the notice should include more details on decertifying unions and rights under 'Communications Workers v. Beck'.
Proposed Rule on Unlawful Union Activity
Suggested three changes to the language describing unlawful union activity, such as modifying the wording on threats and discrimination.
Proposed Rule on Unlawful Union Activity
Argued that the notice fails to fully inform employees of their rights as union members.
Proposed Rule on Unlawful Union Activity
Urged the inclusion of a variety of other examples of unlawful union conduct in the notice.
Proposed Rule on Collective-Bargaining Provision
Requested clarification that an employer's obligation is to bargain in good faith, not necessarily to reach an agreement.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity