Sands Motel And Amm, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass
404 U.S. 157 (1971) Cited 630 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit
Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board
379 U.S. 203 (1964) Cited 731 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
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
First National Maintenance Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
452 U.S. 666 (1981) Cited 269 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
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.
388 U.S. 26 (1967) Cited 322 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
Carrier Corp. v. N.L.R.B
768 F.2d 778 (6th Cir. 1985) Cited 78 times
Holding that companies are joint employers when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees-where from the evidence it can be shown that they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"
N.L.R.B. v. Century Moving Storage, Inc.
683 F.2d 1087 (7th Cir. 1982) Cited 4 times
Reversing bargaining order where "recurring misconduct" unlikely
Weltronic Company v. N.L.R.B
419 F.2d 1120 (6th Cir. 1969) Cited 14 times
In Weltronic we indulged the presumption that the Board's unstated reason for denying the union's motion to reopen was because the company had already filed in this Court its petition for review of the Board's order.
Amalgamated Clothing Wkrs. of Am. v. N.L.R.B
527 F.2d 803 (D.C. Cir. 1975) Cited 6 times
Nos. 74-1608, 74-1668. Argued September 9, 1975. Decided December 8, 1975. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied January 13, 1976. Ann Neydon, New York City, for petitioner in No. 74-1608 and intervenor in No. 74-1668. Arthur M. Goldberg and George Kaufman, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for petitioner in No. 74-1608 and intervenor in No. 74-1668. John F. Depenbrock, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Elliott Moore, Deputy
N.L.R.B. v. Gibraltar Industries, Inc.
307 F.2d 428 (4th Cir. 1962) Cited 13 times
Granting enforcement petition based on finding that "there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion" viewing the "separate legal entities as a single employing enterprise"

Sands Motel And Amm, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit

Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

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

Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

Holding that companies are joint employers when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees-where from the evidence it can be shown that they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"

Reversing bargaining order where "recurring misconduct" unlikely

In Weltronic we indulged the presumption that the Board's unstated reason for denying the union's motion to reopen was because the company had already filed in this Court its petition for review of the Board's order.

Granting enforcement petition based on finding that "there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion" viewing the "separate legal entities as a single employing enterprise"