ยง

OGS Technologies, Inc.

356 N.L.R.B. 642 (N.L.R.B. 2011)
OGS Technologies, Inc.

9 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. Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board

    379 U.S. 203 (1964)   Cited 730 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

  3. First National Maintenance Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    452 U.S. 666 (1981)   Cited 268 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer has no duty to bargain over a decision to shut down part of its business purely for economic reasons

  4. Power Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    40 F.3d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1994)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that coincident timing and uncontested ยง 8 violations was sufficient evidence to support Board's finding

  5. 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.

  6. Rock-Tenn Company v. N.L.R.B

    101 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1996)   Cited 5 times
    Concluding bargaining was mandatory because shift of unit work to subcontract hauling company to save on labor costs "is a prototype Fibreboard case"

  7. 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

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Cablevision Systems Development

    671 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1982)   Cited 3 times
    Upholding Board's successorship finding where the "employees continued to perform basically the same work as before"

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second