12 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.
356 U.S. 342 (1958) Cited 296 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."
Lihli Fashions Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
80 F.3d 743 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 140 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the status of two companies as a single employer “is enough to hold them jointly and severally liable for each other's debts and obligations, including financial obligations under collective bargaining agreement,” even if the non-signatory may not be bound by the agreement
Stardyne, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
41 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 1994) Cited 58 timesHolding that the Board's alter ego analysis involved a policy choice that is consistent with the Act
N.L.R.B. v. Allcoast Transfer, Inc.
780 F.2d 576 (6th Cir. 1986) Cited 74 timesFinding that a new corporation formed by the split of an employer's moving and storage business into two entities was the alter ego of the employer and, therefore, bound by its collective bargaining obligations
N.L.R.B. v. G T Terminal Packaging Co.
246 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 37 timesHolding restoration order to be unduly burdensome because company did not have enough space to accommodate the disputed work operation
J. Vallery Elec., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
337 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 2003) Cited 24 timesFinding alter ego bound to collective bargaining agreement
Midwest Precision Heating v. N.L.R.B
408 F.3d 450 (8th Cir. 2005) Cited 12 timesNos. 04-1862, 04-2056. Submitted: January 10, 2005. Filed: May 19, 2005. On Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Thomas M. Moore, argued, Kansas City, Missouri (S. Owen Griffin on the brief), for petitioners/cross-appellants. Steven B. Goldstein, argued, Washington, D.C. (Robert J. Englehart, Arthur F. Rosenfeld, John E. Higgins, Jr., John H. Ferguson, and Aileen A. Armstrong on the brief), for respondent/cross-petitioner. Before SMITH, HEANEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit
Rock-Tenn Servs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
594 F. App'x 897 (9th Cir. 2014)No. 12-70516 No. 12-70934 11-25-2014 ROCK-TENN SERVICES, INC., formerly known as Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, TEAMSTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 2, LOCAL 388-M, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Respondent-Intervenor. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, TEAMSTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO 2, LOCAL 388-M, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Petitioner-Intervenor, v. ROCK-TENN SERVICES,
N.L.R.B. v. United Technologies Corp.
884 F.2d 1569 (2d Cir. 1989) Cited 18 times 2 Legal AnalysesNos. 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
Fugazy Continental Corp. v. N.L.R.B
725 F.2d 1416 (D.C. Cir. 1984) Cited 23 timesAffirming alter ego finding where only portion of company's operations were shut and transferred to a new, "sham" company established to perform the same work