Purolator Armored, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

First National Maintenance Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
452 U.S. 666 (1981) Cited 270 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
Interstate Circuit v. U.S.
306 U.S. 208 (1939) Cited 513 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"
Textile Workers v. Darlington Co.
380 U.S. 263 (1965) Cited 168 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer has the absolute right, at least as far as the NLRA is concerned, to terminate his entire business for any reason
Pittsburgh Glass Co. v. Board
313 U.S. 146 (1941) Cited 294 times
In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.
Frito-Lay, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
585 F.2d 62 (3d Cir. 1978) Cited 23 times
Reopening of uneconomic plant would cost one million dollars plus operating loss of several hundred thousand dollars a year
N.L.R.B. v. Townhouse T. V. Appliances, Inc.
531 F.2d 826 (7th Cir. 1976) Cited 26 times
Declining to enforce an order to resume the original business because taking back the subcontracted work would be burdensome
Burns Electronic Security Services, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
624 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1980) Cited 6 times
In Burns the Court was concerned with the Board's procedural deficiencies because the Board had excluded relevant evidence in the representation proceeding and made inconsistent rulings in a prior case involving similar employees of the same employer.
N.L.R.B. v. North Carolina Coastal Motor Lines
542 F.2d 637 (4th Cir. 1976) Cited 8 times
Nos. 76-1135, 76-1401. Argued August 25, 1976. Decided September 29, 1976. David F. Zorensky, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (John S. Irving, Jr., Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner in No. 76-1135 and for respondent in No. 76-1401. Robert A. Valois, Raleigh, N.C. (Frank P. Ward, Jr., Maupin, Taylor Ellis, Raleigh, N.C., on brief), for respondent in No. 76-1135 and for petitioner
International Union, United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
470 F.2d 422 (D.C. Cir. 1972) Cited 9 times
In International Union v. NLRB, 152 U.S. App.D.C. 274, 276-77, 470 F.2d 422, 424-25, Justice Clark, sitting by designation in the D.C. Circuit, reviewed the cases of which Fibreboard was the avant-courier.

Purolator Armored, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

Holding that an employer has no duty to bargain over a decision to shut down part of its business purely for economic reasons

Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"

Holding that an employer has the absolute right, at least as far as the NLRA is concerned, to terminate his entire business for any reason

In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.

Reopening of uneconomic plant would cost one million dollars plus operating loss of several hundred thousand dollars a year

Declining to enforce an order to resume the original business because taking back the subcontracted work would be burdensome

In Burns the Court was concerned with the Board's procedural deficiencies because the Board had excluded relevant evidence in the representation proceeding and made inconsistent rulings in a prior case involving similar employees of the same employer.

In International Union v. NLRB, 152 U.S. App.D.C. 274, 276-77, 470 F.2d 422, 424-25, Justice Clark, sitting by designation in the D.C. Circuit, reviewed the cases of which Fibreboard was the avant-courier.