§

COUNTY AGENCY INC., AND ESPLANADE PARTNERS LTD. d/b/a ESPLANADE VENTURE PARTNERSHIP d/b/a THE ESPLAN

02-CA-188405 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 7, 2019)
COUNTY AGENCY INC., AND ESPLANADE PARTNERS LTD. d/b/a ESPLANADE VENTURE PARTNERSHIP d/b/a THE ESPLAN

10 Cited authorities

  1. Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    482 U.S. 27 (1987)   Cited 369 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the new employer must bargain with the old union, if the new employer is a true successor, and discussing factors

  2. Golden State Bottling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    414 U.S. 168 (1973)   Cited 497 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 65(d) allows enforcement of orders against successors of enjoined parties

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.

    406 U.S. 272 (1972)   Cited 478 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  4. Boire v. Greyhound Corp.

    376 U.S. 473 (1964)   Cited 426 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding status of employer as independent contractor is immaterial because focus of joint employment inquiry is on employees, not employers

  5. Caine v. Hardy

    503 U.S. 936 (1992)   Cited 103 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 / Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 doctrine

  6. 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"

  7. U.S. Marine Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    944 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir. 1990)   Cited 49 times

    Nos. 89-2051, 89-2140 and 89-2152. Argued December 5, 1989. Decided October 18, 1990. Reheard En Banc June 11, 1991. Decided September 25, 1991. Fred G. Groiss, Quarles Brady, Milwaukee, Wis., James D. Holzhauer (argued), Mayer, Brown Platt, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners/cross-respondents. Kenneth R. Loebel (argued), Previant, Goldberg, Uelman, Gratz, Miller Brueggeman, Milwaukee, Wis., for intervening respondent, petioner. Steven B. Goldstein, Contempt Litigation Branch, Washington, D.C., Fred

  8. Jackson Hosp. Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    647 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining that “[l]ong ago” the NLRB “clarified” that an employee has no right to bring a witness to a meeting, the “sole purpose” of which is to deliver a predetermined warning

  9. Paulsen ex rel. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. GVS Properties, LLC

    904 F. Supp. 2d 282 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 12 Civ. 4845(BMC). 2012-11-13 James G. PAULSEN, Regional Director of Region 29 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. GVS PROPERTIES, LLC, Respondent. Colleen P. Breslin, National Labor Relations Board, for Petitioner. Alexander Leong, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP, for Respondent. COGAN Colleen P. Breslin, National Labor Relations Board, for Petitioner. Alexander Leong, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP

  10. Terrell Machine Company v. N.L.R.B

    427 F.2d 1088 (4th Cir. 1970)   Cited 47 times

    No. 13371. Argued December 2, 1969. Decided January 20, 1970. William W. Sturges, Charlotte, N.C. (Weinstein, Waggoner, Sturges Odom, Charlotte, N.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Thomas E. Silfen, Atty., N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and John D. Burgoyne, Atty., N.L.R.B., on the brief), for respondent. Before SOBELOFF and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and HARVEY, District Judge. WINTER, Circuit Judge: