§

Sterling Processing Corp.

291 N.L.R.B. 208 (N.L.R.B. 1988)
Sterling Processing Corp.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,035 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  2. 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

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

    406 U.S. 272 (1972)   Cited 478 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  4. Hitchman Coal Coke Co. v. Mitchell

    245 U.S. 229 (1917)   Cited 463 times
    In Hitchman Coal Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 262 (1917), this Court struck the portions of a decree enjoining a union from picketing and physical violence because there was no evidence that either of these forms of interference was threatened.

  5. United Food C. Workers I. U. v. N.L.R.B

    768 F.2d 1463 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 29 times
    Finding successorship despite difference in some management personnel

  6. Berwind Corp. v. Litton Industries, Inc.

    532 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Berwind, the Seventh Circuit pointed out that under Illinois law there are three prerequisites to be met before an exculpatory clause will be deemed to defeat a claim: the clause must be strictly construed; the interpretation is made with every intendment considered against the party who seeks immunity from liability; and the clause must spell out the intention of the parties with the greatest of particularity.

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Little Rock Downtowner, Inc.

    414 F.2d 1084 (8th Cir. 1969)   Cited 37 times

    No. 19427. August 19, 1969. Herman M. Levy, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Jonathan M. Marks, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief. Richard A. Brackhahn, of Fowler, Brackhahn Young, Memphis, Tenn., for respondent, Newell N. Fowler, Memphis, Tenn., on the brief. Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge, and VOGEL and HEANEY, Circuit Judges

  8. Fraser v. Magic Chef-Food Giant Markets, Inc.

    324 F.2d 853 (6th Cir. 1963)   Cited 37 times
    Finding that the discontinuation of an employer's plant did not violate the terms of the collective bargaining agreement because collective bargaining agreements do not create an employer-employee relationship nor does it guarantee the continuance of one

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Nu-Southern Dyeing Finishing

    444 F.2d 11 (4th Cir. 1971)   Cited 14 times

    No. 14960. Argued April 5, 1971. Decided May 28, 1971. Paul J. Spielberg, Atty., N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Marjorie S. Gofreed, Atty., N.L.R.B., on brief), for petitioner. Ernest W. Machen, Jr., Charlotte, N.C. (Blakeney, Alexander Machen, Charlotte, N.C., on brief), for respondents. Before BRYAN, WINTER and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges. WINTER, Circuit Judge: Nu-Southern Dyeing Finishing, Inc. and

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Laystrom Manufacturing Co.

    359 F.2d 799 (7th Cir. 1966)   Cited 12 times
    In NLRB v. Laystrom Manufacturing Co., 359 F.2d 799, 800 (7th Cir. 1966), the evidence showed a narrow margin of victory by the union in an election two years earlier and high employee turnover.