§

Pioner Concrete of Arkansas

327 N.L.R.B. 333 (N.L.R.B. 1998)
Pioner Concrete of Arkansas

7 Cited authorities

  1. Allentown Mack Sales & Service, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    522 U.S. 359 (1998)   Cited 428 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board "is not free to prescribe what inferences from the evidence it will accept and reject, but must draw all those inferences that the evidence fairly demands"

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

    482 U.S. 27 (1987)   Cited 372 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the new employer must bargain with the old union, if the new employer is a true successor, and discussing factors

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

    406 U.S. 272 (1972)   Cited 480 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  4. Trident Seafoods, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    101 F.3d 111 (D.C. Cir. 1996)   Cited 22 times
    Collecting standards

  5. Banknote America v. National Labor Relations

    84 F.3d 637 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Enforcing Board order requiring employer to bargain with three different units at a printing facility

  6. Bry-Fern Care Center, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    21 F.3d 706 (6th Cir. 1994)   Cited 7 times

    Nos. 92-6484, 92-6561. Argued October 8, 1993. Decided February 28, 1994. This decision was originally issued as an "unpublished decision" filed on February 28, 1994. On March 22, 1994, the court designated the opinion as one recommended for full-text publication. Brent D. Rector (argued and briefed), Miller, Johnson, Snell Cumminskey, Grand Rapids, MI, for Bry-Fern Care Center, Inc. Aileen A. Armstrong (briefed), Dep. Asso. Gen. Counsel, Peter Winkler, Angela Washington (argued), N.L.R.B., Appellate

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Security-Columbian Banknote Co.

    541 F.2d 135 (3d Cir. 1976)   Cited 23 times
    Noting the possibility that a “change in the control of a business enterprise [could] destroy a pre-existing bargaining unit”