§

Elf Atochem North America, Inc.

339 N.L.R.B. 796 (N.L.R.B. 2003)
Elf Atochem North America, Inc.

19 Cited authorities

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

    482 U.S. 27 (1987)   Cited 372 times   13 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. Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co.

    484 U.S. 539 (1988)   Cited 330 times
    Holding that the remedy provided in §§ 515 and 502(g) "is limited to the collection of `promised contributions' and does not confer jurisdiction on district courts to determine whether an employer's unilateral decision to refuse to make post-contract contributions constitutes a violation of the NLRA."

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

    406 U.S. 272 (1972)   Cited 480 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  4. Ford Motor Co. (Chicago Stamping Plant) v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    441 U.S. 488 (1979)   Cited 290 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that proposal concerning in-plant cafeteria prices was within duty to bargain despite fact that prices were set by third-party supplier rather than employer

  5. WSB Electric, Inc. v. Curry

    519 U.S. 1109 (1997)   Cited 152 times
    Explaining the distinction between medical judgment and deliberate mistreatment

  6. American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    395 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1968)   Cited 103 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying Taft

  7. California Pacific Medical v. N.L.R.B

    87 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 26 times

    No. 93-71039, 94-70009 Argued and Submitted August 15, 1995, San Francisco, California Filed June 19, 1996 Jerome B. Falk, Jr., Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson, Falk Rabkin, San Francisco, California, for the petitioner-respondent. Richard A. Cohen, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, for the respondent-petitioner. On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. NLRB No. 20-CA-24067. Before: BETTY B. FLETCHER, CECIL F. POOLE, and DIARMUID

  8. Harter Tomato Products Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    133 F.3d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1998)   Cited 22 times

    No. 96-1326 Argued December 11, 1997 Decided January 23, 1998 Warren Davison argued the cause for petitioner/cross-respondent. With him on the briefs was Mary E. Bruno. David A. Seid, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent/cross-petitioner. With him on the brief were Linda Sher, Associate General Counsel. Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Fred Cornnell, Supervisory Attorney. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of

  9. Canteen Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    103 F.3d 1355 (7th Cir. 1997)   Cited 18 times
    Affirming NLRB's finding of substantial continuity where there was no temporal break in the operation of the two businesses

  10. United Food C. Workers I. U. v. N.L.R.B

    768 F.2d 1463 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 29 times
    Finding successorship despite difference in some management personnel