§

Hill-Rom Co., Inc.

297 N.L.R.B. 351 (N.L.R.B. 1989)
Hill-Rom Co., Inc.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bildisco & Bildisco

    465 U.S. 513 (1984)   Cited 1,161 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure of Congress to draft an exclusion for certain collective bargaining agreements in 11 U.S.C. § 365 indicates that the provision applies to all such agreements, in light of the previous use of such an exclusion by Congress in 11 U.S.C. § 1167

  2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    765 F.2d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer is prohibited "from altering contractual terms concerning mandatory subjects of bargaining during the life of a collective bargaining agreement without the consent of the union"

  3. N.L.R.B. v. United Technologies Corp.

    884 F.2d 1569 (2d Cir. 1989)   Cited 18 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 1095, 1096, Dockets 89-4003, 89-4009. Argued May 8, 1989. Decided September 13, 1989. Edward J. Dempsey, Director, Indus. Relations Labor Counsel, United Technologies Corp., Hartford, Conn., for respondent/intervenor United Technologies Corp. Judith P. Flower, Washington, D.C. (Barbara A. Atkin, Supervisory Attorney, Joseph E. Desio, Acting Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., of counsel), for

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Complas Industries, Inc.

    714 F.2d 729 (7th Cir. 1983)   Cited 24 times

    No. 81-2155. Submitted July 6, 1983. Petitioner has filed a statement asking this Court to enforce the Board's order without hearing oral argument. The Court notified respondent that it might file a "Statement as to Need of Oral Argument." Respondent has filed such a statement stating that it would prefer oral argument unless the Court is of the opinion that the facts and arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and the record and the court's decisional process would not significantly be

  5. Boise Cascade Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    860 F.2d 471 (D.C. Cir. 1988)   Cited 18 times
    Holding scope of the employees' bargaining unit is not a mandatory subject of bargaining

  6. The Idaho Statesman v. N.L.R.B

    836 F.2d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1988)   Cited 17 times
    Stating that § 8 protects mandatory, but not permissive, subjects of bargaining

  7. Newspaper Printing Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    625 F.2d 956 (10th Cir. 1980)   Cited 24 times
    In Newspaper Printing Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 625 F.2d 956 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied 450 U.S. 911, 101 S.Ct. 1349, 67 L.Ed.2d 335 (1981), the newspaper and the union had a clause in the prior collective bargaining agreement similar if not identical to that of Article I Section 3 in the 1972-75 agreement in the present case.

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Paper Manufacturers Co.

    786 F.2d 163 (3d Cir. 1986)   Cited 10 times

    No. 85-3266. Argued January 14, 1986. Decided March 18, 1986. Thomas W. Budd, (argued), Clifton, Budd, Burke DeMaria, New York City for respondent, Paper Manufacturers Co. Bernard N. Katz (argued) Michael N. Katz, Basil L. Merenda, Meranze Katz Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent, Warehouse Employees Local 169. William T. Josem, (argued), Markowitz Richman, Philadelphia, Pa., for intervenor Graphic Communications Intern. Union Local 14, AFL-CIO. Andrew F. Tranovich, Marc B. Seidman (argued) Attys.

  9. University of Chicago v. N.L.R.B

    514 F.2d 942 (7th Cir. 1975)   Cited 15 times
    In Univ. of Chicago v. N.L.R.B., 514 F.2d 942 (7th Cir. 1975), the University had transferred custodial work from one bargaining unit to another after bargaining to impasse over the transfer.

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Bay Shipbuilding Corp.

    721 F.2d 187 (7th Cir. 1983)   Cited 7 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Enforcing 263 N.L.R.B. 1133