§
Comar, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Holly Farms Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    517 U.S. 392 (1996)   Cited 136 times
    Holding that where statute's meaning is obvious, courts and Board must defer to Congress's unambiguous intent, but where ambiguity exists, courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 265 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"

  3. Holly Farms Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    48 F.3d 1360 (4th Cir. 1995)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that employer had a duty to bargain with union over the effects of a merger on “wages, hours, work rules, work schedules, and work locations”

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Waymouth Farms, Inc.

    172 F.3d 598 (8th Cir. 1999)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming NLRB order finding violation of section 8 when employer made misrepresentations with respect to relocation of business that affected negotiation of the effects of relocation

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Paper Manufacturers Co.

    786 F.2d 163 (3d Cir. 1986)   Cited 10 times

    No. 85-3266. Argued January 14, 1986. Decided March 18, 1986. Thomas W. Budd, (argued), Clifton, Budd, Burke DeMaria, New York City for respondent, Paper Manufacturers Co. Bernard N. Katz (argued) Michael N. Katz, Basil L. Merenda, Meranze Katz Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent, Warehouse Employees Local 169. William T. Josem, (argued), Markowitz Richman, Philadelphia, Pa., for intervenor Graphic Communications Intern. Union Local 14, AFL-CIO. Andrew F. Tranovich, Marc B. Seidman (argued) Attys.

  6. Intern. Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B

    759 F.2d 1477 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 8 times

    No. 84-7356. Argued and Submitted February 11, 1985. Decided May 13, 1985. David A. Rosenfeld, Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger Rosenfeld, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Kathleen Murray, Elliott Moore, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. James A. Carter, San Francisco, Cal., for intervenor. On Petition to Review an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before KENNEDY, ALARCON and NELSON, Circuit Judges. NELSON, Circuit Judge: International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Food Employers Council, Inc.

    399 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1968)   Cited 24 times
    In NLRB v. Food Employers Council, Inc., 399 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1968), the Board, in denying accretion, found that snack bar employees in retail food markets had common interests separate and distinct from the other retail clerks in the market.

  8. Cooper Thermometer Company v. N.L.R.B

    376 F.2d 684 (2d Cir. 1967)   Cited 18 times
    Affirming a Board finding of an unfair labor practice where employer did not provide employees with information about how they could transfer to a new plant after operations at an initial plant were terminated

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lewis

    246 F.2d 886 (9th Cir. 1957)   Cited 16 times
    In Lewis, a partnership that manufactured and sold shoes gradually transferred the manufacturing portion of its business to a corporation at a different location.

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second