Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60, 128 S. Ct. 2408 (2008)

Assembly Bill 1889, enacted in 2000, prohibited private employers that receive state funds – whether by reimbursement, grant, contract, use of state property or pursuant to a state program – from using such funds to “assist, promote, or deter union organizing.” Violators were to be liable to the state for the

IBM Corp., 341 NLRB No. 148 (June 9, 2004)

In this far-reaching decision, the National Labor Relations Board overruled its own recent decision in Epilepsy Found. of N.E. Ohio, 331 NLRB 676 (2000), and held that employees who are not represented by a union are not entitled to have a coworker present during investigatory interviews. In this decision, the Board held that IBM

Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Lockyer, 364 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2004)

In 2000, California enacted Assembly Bill No. 1889 (Government Code §§ 16645-16649) which, among other things, prohibits private employers “receiving state funds in excess of $10,000 in any calendar year” from using such funds to “assist, promote, or deter union organizing.” The United States Chamber of Commerce brought an action

Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 1361 (2002)

Sharron Grant-Burton alleged that her employment was terminated in retaliation for having participated in a group discussion with other marketing directors about the company’s bonus structure. The company’s director of human relations testified at her deposition that Grant-Burton’s discussion of bonuses in a public forum was one of the reasons for the termination.

Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002)

The employer in this case, Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc., was found to have violated Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it selected four known union supporters for layoff. During a compliance hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), one of the four employees, Jose Castro, testified that he was born