Bolivar-Tees, Inc.

18 Cited authorities

Radio Union v. Broadcast Serv
380 U.S. 255 (1965) Cited 327 times
Holding that two entities were a single employer and therefore that their gross receipts could be totaled together to establish jurisdiction under the National Labor Relations Act
South Prairie Constr. v. Operating Engineers
425 U.S. 800 (1976) Cited 222 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that appeals court usurped role of NLRB by reversing Board's legal conclusion and proceeding to decide issue of fact that should be decided by Board in the first instance
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc.
691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982) Cited 339 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that joint employer situation exists only when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees . . . [where] they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"
Labor Board v. Deena Artware
361 U.S. 398 (1960) Cited 139 times
Ruling that derivative liability could be imposed on the basis of single employer status
Southport Pet., Co. v. N.L.R.B
315 U.S. 100 (1942) Cited 187 times
Ruling that dissolution of company and transfer of assets did not prevent enforcement of a Board order
Seymour v. Hull Moreland Engineering
605 F.2d 1105 (9th Cir. 1979) Cited 181 times
Holding that plaintiffs did not satisfy the alter ego test's second prong because "there was no evidence of any "fraudulent intent in forming the corporation," and that "no evidence of bad faith or fraudulent intent in forming the corporation was presented."
Cascade Energy and Metals Corp. v. Banks
896 F.2d 1557 (10th Cir. 1990) Cited 107 times
Holding that, "[a]bsent a clear statement" by state supreme court adopting outside reverse — piercing theory, federal court will not reverse pierce
N.L.R.B. v. Greater Kansas City Roofing
2 F.3d 1047 (10th Cir. 1993) Cited 97 times
Holding it was error to hold sole shareholder personally liable for judgment against corporation she controlled because that there was no evidence to suggest her disregard for many corporate formalities constituted fraud or was done to cause the company to be less able to pay a judgment
N.L.R.B. v. Don Burgess Const. Corp.
596 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1979) Cited 101 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that section 10(b) limitations period begins to run when the employee "discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the acts constituting the alleged [violation]"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Al Bryant, Inc.
711 F.2d 543 (3d Cir. 1983) Cited 62 times
Finding that "the frequent interchange of craftsman" between the two companies is "substantial evidence to support" centralized labor relations control

Bolivar-Tees, Inc.

18 Cited authorities

Holding that two entities were a single employer and therefore that their gross receipts could be totaled together to establish jurisdiction under the National Labor Relations Act

Holding that appeals court usurped role of NLRB by reversing Board's legal conclusion and proceeding to decide issue of fact that should be decided by Board in the first instance

Holding that joint employer situation exists only when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees . . . [where] they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"

Ruling that derivative liability could be imposed on the basis of single employer status

Ruling that dissolution of company and transfer of assets did not prevent enforcement of a Board order

Holding that plaintiffs did not satisfy the alter ego test's second prong because "there was no evidence of any "fraudulent intent in forming the corporation," and that "no evidence of bad faith or fraudulent intent in forming the corporation was presented."

Holding that, "[a]bsent a clear statement" by state supreme court adopting outside reverse — piercing theory, federal court will not reverse pierce

Holding it was error to hold sole shareholder personally liable for judgment against corporation she controlled because that there was no evidence to suggest her disregard for many corporate formalities constituted fraud or was done to cause the company to be less able to pay a judgment

Holding that section 10(b) limitations period begins to run when the employee "discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the acts constituting the alleged [violation]"

Finding that "the frequent interchange of craftsman" between the two companies is "substantial evidence to support" centralized labor relations control