§

J. R. Simplot Co.

311 N.L.R.B. 572 (N.L.R.B. 1993)
J. R. Simplot Co.

7 Cited authorities

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

    482 U.S. 27 (1987)   Cited 364 times   12 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. Industrial Un. of Mar. Ship. W. v. N.L.R.B

    320 F.2d 615 (3d Cir. 1963)   Cited 63 times   4 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 14052, 14102. Argued May 21, 1963. Decided July 30, 1963. M.H. Goldstein, Philadelphia, Pa. (Goldstein Barkan, Michael Brodie, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for petitioner, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO. John H. Morse, New York City (Frank Cummings, New York City, Cravath, Swaine Moore, New York City, on the brief), for Bethlehem Steel Co. (Shipbuilding Division). Nancy M. Sherman, Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli

  3. Microimage Display Div. of Xidex v. N.L.R.B

    924 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1991)   Cited 15 times
    Endorsing the NLRB's "material, substantial, and significant" standard

  4. Bellingham Frozen Foods, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    626 F.2d 674 (9th Cir. 1980)   Cited 19 times
    Holding Spruce Up did not apply and the new employer was a perfectly clear successor where the employer stated its intention to retain most of the employees, employees did not have to reapply, and employees worked under the same conditions for a week after the takeover

  5. Westwood Import Co. Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    681 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 14 times
    In Westwood Import, the court did not discuss how distance factored into its analysis, but relied upon Tricor Products, Inc., 239 NLRB 65, 68 (1978).

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Marine Optical, Inc.

    671 F.2d 11 (1st Cir. 1982)   Cited 13 times
    Finding street address in unit description, alone, did not constitute a waiver

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Hudson Berlind Corp.

    494 F.2d 1200 (2d Cir. 1974)   Cited 4 times
    In Hudson Berlind Corp., supra, we made clear that in determining the existence of a question of representation the Board could examine factors other than the numerical strength of the contending unions.