§

Morton Development Corp.

299 N.L.R.B. 649 (N.L.R.B. 1990)
Morton Development Corp.

7 Cited authorities

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

    482 U.S. 27 (1987)   Cited 369 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. Golden State Bottling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    414 U.S. 168 (1973)   Cited 497 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 65(d) allows enforcement of orders against successors of enjoined parties

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.

    406 U.S. 272 (1972)   Cited 478 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  4. Penntech Papers, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    706 F.2d 18 (1st Cir. 1983)   Cited 121 times
    Holding that same day notice was inadequate where company failed to bargain in good faith after the closure

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Al Bryant, Inc.

    711 F.2d 543 (3d Cir. 1983)   Cited 62 times
    Finding that "the frequent interchange of craftsman" between the two companies is "substantial evidence to support" centralized labor relations control

  6. District 1199P v. N.L.R.B

    864 F.2d 1096 (3d Cir. 1989)   Cited 10 times

    No. 88-3141. Argued September 15, 1988. Decided January 4, 1989. David M. Silberman (argued), Laurence Gold, Washington, D.C., Miriam L. Gafni, Freedman and Lorry, P.C., Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner. Peter Winkler (argued), Michael D. Fox, Aileen A. Armstrong, Rosemary M. Collyer, John E. Higgins, Jr., Robert E. Allen, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Lawrence B. Fine (argued), Julia W. Manning, Morgan, Lewis Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., for intervenor. Petition for review from the

  7. Nat. Labor Rel. Bd., v. Aquabrom, Div., Lakes

    862 F.2d 100 (6th Cir. 1988)   Cited 5 times
    In Aquabrom, the new enterprise acquired all the assets of the old company, including the machinery and equipment, continued production at the same location and the employees' functions and conditions remained unchanged.