§

Lexington Cartage Company, Inc.

259 N.L.R.B. 55 (N.L.R.B. 1981)
Lexington Cartage Company, Inc.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Brooks v. Labor Board

    348 U.S. 96 (1954)   Cited 299 times
    Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board

  2. N.L.R.B. v. Lee Office Equipment

    572 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1978)   Cited 12 times
    In NLRB v. Lee Office Equipment, 572 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1978), the court was asked to exempt an employer refusal to bargain during the certification year because the union had allegedly not only lost its majority status but had done so as a result of its own misconduct.

  3. McLean v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    333 F.2d 84 (6th Cir. 1964)   Cited 12 times
    Refusing to apply "the doctrine of waiver or estoppel . . . to excuse the employer from its statutory duty to bargain in good faith with the union during the certification period"

  4. Cocker Saw Company v. N.L.R.B

    446 F.2d 870 (2d Cir. 1971)   Cited 2 times

    Nos. 896, 897, Dockets 35697, 71-1168. Argued June 17, 1971. Decided July 7, 1971. Richard L. Wolf, Buffalo, N.Y. (Randall M. Odza and Jaeckle, Fleischmann Mugel, Buffalo, N.Y., on the brief), for petitioner. Warren M. Davidson, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Paul J. Spielberg, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent. Before LUMBARD and KAUFMAN, Circuit

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. American Steel Buck

    227 F.2d 927 (2d Cir. 1955)   Cited 7 times

    No. 50, Docket 23577. Argued October 13, 1955. Decided December 1, 1955. Theophil C. Kammholz, David P. Findling, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Elizabeth W. Weston and Rose Mary Filipowicz, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Raphael, Searles, Levin Vischi, New York City (Sidney O. Raphael, New York City, of counsel), for respondent. Before FRANK, HINCKS and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. As the facts are fully stated in the Board's decision, reported in 110 N.L.R.B. No. 265, we shall not repeat them