Summit Tooling Co.

14 Cited authorities

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
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board
313 U.S. 177 (1941) Cited 871 times
Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
Labor Board v. Seven-Up Co.
344 U.S. 344 (1953) Cited 368 times
Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding
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
H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 514 (1941) Cited 241 times 1 Legal Analyses
In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.
N.L.R.B. v. Royal Plating Polishing Co.
350 F.2d 191 (3d Cir. 1965) Cited 43 times
In NLRB v. Royal Plating Polishing Co., Inc., 350 F.2d 191, 196 (3d Cir. 1965), the court characterized a company's decision to close a plant when "faced with the economic necessity of either moving or consolidating the operations of a failing business" as a "management decision which [is] fundamental to the basic direction of a corporate enterprise" and which lies "at the core of entrepreneurial control.
N.L.R.B. v. Adams Dairy, Inc.
350 F.2d 108 (8th Cir. 1965) Cited 31 times
In NLRB v. Adams Dairy, Inc., 350 F.2d 108 (8 Cir. 1965), cert. denied 382 U.S. 1011, 86 S.Ct. 619, 15 L.Ed.2d 526 (1966), we held that in the absence of union animus, a company has no legal duty to bargain with a union over the decision to partially shut down its operations because of economic reasons.
N.L.R.B. v. Thompson Transport Company
406 F.2d 698 (10th Cir. 1969) Cited 24 times
No. 9879. January 29, 1969. Rehearing Denied March 21, 1969. Edward Wall, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Frank H. Itkin and Mitchell L. Strickler, Washington, D.C., Attorneys, on the brief), for petitioner. William G. Haynes, Topeka, Kan. (Lillard, Eidson, Lewis Porter and O.B. Eidson, Philip H. Lewis, James W. Porter, Charles S. Fisher, Jr., Charles N. Henson, Peter F. Caldwell, Roscoe
N.L.R.B. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
361 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1966) Cited 27 times
Holding that employer not "relieved of its duty to obey the order to bargain during the pendency of the proceedings to enforce the earlier order"
N.L.R.B. v. Drapery Manufacturing Co.
425 F.2d 1026 (8th Cir. 1970) Cited 19 times
Distinguishing Fibreboard and Ozark Trailers, the court holds that the decision of a parent company to close its subsidiary involved a major shift in investment capital, hence the decision to close not a mandatory bargaining subject under Fibreboard
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,091 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

Summit Tooling Co.

14 Cited authorities

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

Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding

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 H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

Holding that employer not "relieved of its duty to obey the order to bargain during the pendency of the proceedings to enforce the earlier order"

Distinguishing Fibreboard and Ozark Trailers, the court holds that the decision of a parent company to close its subsidiary involved a major shift in investment capital, hence the decision to close not a mandatory bargaining subject under Fibreboard

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"