§
Dattco, Inc.

9 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. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board

    313 U.S. 177 (1941)   Cited 871 times
    Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

  3. Labor Board v. Seven-Up Co.

    344 U.S. 344 (1953)   Cited 368 times
    Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 357 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  5. Dunbar Armored, Inc. v. NLRB

    186 F.3d 844 (7th Cir. 1999)   Cited 13 times
    Approving single-facility unit where distance between facilities was approximately one hour

  6. Banknote America v. National Labor Relations

    84 F.3d 637 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Enforcing Board order requiring employer to bargain with three different units at a printing facility

  7. Citisteel USA, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    53 F.3d 350 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In CitiSteel we found "abundant other indicia of discontinuity to make the impact of the hiatus on the workers' expectation of rehire relevant."

  8. Coastal Derby Refining Co. v. N.L.R.B

    915 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir. 1990)   Cited 6 times
    In Coastal Derby Refining Co. v. NLRB, 915 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir. 1990), we held that when there has been a hiatus between the closing of an enterprise and its reopening, "[t]he relevant inquiry is whether the hiatus was of such length as to call into question the likelihood that former... employees viewed their current jobs as essentially unchanged."

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Winco Petroleum Co.

    668 F.2d 973 (8th Cir. 1982)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 80-2147. Submitted September 14, 1981. Decided January 20, 1982. Rehearing Denied February 23, 1982. Robert Sewell, Ruah D. Lahey, Attys., William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., for petitioner. Richard E. Jaudes, Bradley S. Hiles, Peper, Martin, Jensen, Maichel and Hetlage, St. Louis, Mo., for respondent Cooper Oil Co., Inc. Petition for enforcement of