§

SFX Target Center Arena Management, LLC

342 N.L.R.B. 725 (N.L.R.B. 2004)
SFX Target Center Arena Management, LLC

15 Cited authorities

  1. Moses H. Cone Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.

    460 U.S. 1 (1983)   Cited 12,310 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FAA is "a congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration"

  2. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Waffle House, Inc.

    534 U.S. 279 (2002)   Cited 1,531 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a private arbitration agreement between an employee and an employer could not bind a nonparty governmental agency, the EEOC, and thus that the agreement—which was enforceable against the employee under the Federal Arbitration Act—did not limit the types of remedies the agency could seek in an enforcement action it initiated under Title VII

  3. 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

  4. Golden State Bottling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    414 U.S. 168 (1973)   Cited 501 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 65(d) allows enforcement of orders against successors of enjoined parties

  5. 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

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n

    447 U.S. 490 (1980)   Cited 66 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Longshoremen, 447 U.S. 490 (1980) (ILA I), we reviewed the National Labor Relations Board's conclusion that the Rules and their enforcement constituted unlawful secondary activity under §§ 8(b)(4)(B) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4) (B) and 158(e).

  7. N.L.R.B. v. United Technologies Corp.

    884 F.2d 1569 (2d Cir. 1989)   Cited 18 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 1095, 1096, Dockets 89-4003, 89-4009. Argued May 8, 1989. Decided September 13, 1989. Edward J. Dempsey, Director, Indus. Relations Labor Counsel, United Technologies Corp., Hartford, Conn., for respondent/intervenor United Technologies Corp. Judith P. Flower, Washington, D.C. (Barbara A. Atkin, Supervisory Attorney, Joseph E. Desio, Acting Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., of counsel), for

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Joe B. Foods, Inc.

    953 F.2d 287 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 15 times
    Finding that dispositive recommendations on employee hiring is an indicia of supervisory status

  9. Boise Cascade Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    860 F.2d 471 (D.C. Cir. 1988)   Cited 18 times
    Holding scope of the employees' bargaining unit is not a mandatory subject of bargaining

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Hudson River Aggregates

    639 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1981)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that the NLRB's bargaining unit determinations are rarely to be disturbed unless arbitrary, unreasonable, or not supported by substantial evidence.