§

The Bronx Health Plan

326 N.L.R.B. 810 (N.L.R.B. 1998)
The Bronx Health Plan

8 Cited authorities

  1. 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

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

    414 U.S. 168 (1973)   Cited 497 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 65(d) allows enforcement of orders against successors of enjoined parties

  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. Brooks v. Labor Board

    348 U.S. 96 (1954)   Cited 300 times
    Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board

  5. ZIM'S FOODLINER, INC. v. N.L.R.B

    495 F.2d 1131 (7th Cir. 1974)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that the owner of a single store purchased from the Kroger chain was a successor employer

  6. Saks Co. v. N.L.R.B

    634 F.2d 681 (2d Cir. 1980)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that "diminution in unit size is insufficient to rebut the presumption of continued majority status"

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Armato

    199 F.2d 800 (7th Cir. 1952)   Cited 38 times

    No. 10691. November 19, 1952. George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Dominick L. Manoli, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. O.S. Hoebreckx and Clark M. Robertson, Robertson Hoebreckx, Milwaukee, Wis., for respondents. Before MAJOR, Chief Judge, and LINDLEY and SWAIM, Circuit Judges. LINDLEY, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to the provisions

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second