Fairfield Tower Condominium Assn.

13 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
First National Maintenance Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
452 U.S. 666 (1981) Cited 269 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer has no duty to bargain over a decision to shut down part of its business purely for economic reasons
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.
388 U.S. 26 (1967) Cited 322 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp.
373 U.S. 221 (1963) Cited 358 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.
389 U.S. 375 (1967) Cited 233 times
In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.
SCM Corp. v. Advance Business Systems & Supply Co.
397 U.S. 920 (1970) Cited 200 times 5 Legal Analyses
Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances
American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
395 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1968) Cited 102 times 1 Legal Analyses
Applying Taft
Laidlaw Corporation v. N.L.R.B
414 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1969) Cited 81 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list
Waterbury Hotel Management, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
314 F.3d 645 (D.C. Cir. 2003) Cited 10 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding that it was proper to infer from supervisor statements that "hiring decisions were motivated by anti-union animus"
McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
131 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1997) Cited 11 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that agencies are entitled to deviate from reasoning used in prior decisions

Fairfield Tower Condominium Assn.

13 Cited authorities

Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

Holding that an employer has no duty to bargain over a decision to shut down part of its business purely for economic reasons

Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"

In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.

Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances

Applying Taft

Holding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list

Concluding that it was proper to infer from supervisor statements that "hiring decisions were motivated by anti-union animus"

Holding that agencies are entitled to deviate from reasoning used in prior decisions