Ford Brothers, Inc.

23 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,035 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board
379 U.S. 203 (1964) Cited 731 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA
Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Exec. Bd., Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union, AFL-CIO
417 U.S. 249 (1974) Cited 366 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding under NLRA that purchaser of hotel assets was not required to arbitrate with union about its decision not to hire all of seller’s employees
Belknap, Inc. v. Hale
463 U.S. 491 (1983) Cited 277 times
Holding that the NLRA does not preempt state law contract actions by replacement workers to enforce terms of an employment contract
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. Insurance Agents
361 U.S. 477 (1960) Cited 324 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"
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.
Labor Board v. Mackay Co.
304 U.S. 333 (1938) Cited 535 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices
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
Section 6621 - Determination of rate of interest
26 U.S.C. § 6621 Cited 1,873 times 23 Legal Analyses
Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions

Ford Brothers, Inc.

23 Cited authorities

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

Holding under NLRA that purchaser of hotel assets was not required to arbitrate with union about its decision not to hire all of seller’s employees

Holding that the NLRA does not preempt state law contract actions by replacement workers to enforce terms of an employment contract

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

Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"

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.

Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices

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 a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions