§

Crown Textile Co.

335 N.L.R.B. 201 (N.L.R.B. 2001)
Crown Textile Co.

7 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. Vincent Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    209 F.3d 727 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 44 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Vincent Industrial, we directed the Board to premise every bargaining order on an "explicit[ balanc[ing][of] three considerations: (1) the employees' Section 7 rights [ 29 U.S.C. § 157]; (2) whether other purposes of the [NLRA] override the rights of employees to choose their bargaining representatives; and (3) whether alternative remedies are adequate to remedy the violations of the [NLRA]]."

  5. Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    117 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that, "[b]ecause affirmative bargaining orders interfere with the employee free choice that is a core principle of the Act," we "view them with suspicion" and demand special justification for them

  6. Exxel/Atmos, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    28 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1994)   Cited 28 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stressing appropriateness of bargaining order to remedy bad faith bargaining during certification year

  7. Landmark Intern. Trucks, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    699 F.2d 815 (6th Cir. 1983)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Landmark International, the Sixth Circuit held that the evidence failed to support the Board's finding that Landmark had violated § 8(a)(1) by sending letters to employees advising them of their right to resign from the union and to revoke the dues checkoff authorization.