Earl Latsha Lumber Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding, because CBA required employer to notify union in writing of impending discipline, defamation claim was preempted
• holding that any 11 defamation claim based on discharge notices were preempted because the CBA at issue 12 “require[d] employers to notify employees of intended disciplinary action in writing, and 13 simultaneously to notify their union”
• holding that common law wrongful termination/retaliation claim preempted by the NLRA
• finding of no preemption in Tellez “hinged upon the fact that Tellez’s CBA ‘is silent on work conditions, and vague on disciplining formalities’ ”
• rejecting an employee's argument that his union, in accepting a settlement rather than proceeding to arbitration, breached its duty of fair representation
• rejecting “conclusory allegations, not backed up by statements of fact” in an affidavit submitted to support a claim for breach of duty of fair representation and affirming summary judgment for the union on that claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).