§

Walden Security, Inc.

366 NLRB No. 44 (N.L.R.B. 2018)
Walden Security, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. Creative Vision Res., L.L.C. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    882 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2018)   Cited 9 times
    Observing that the court's review is not "pro forma " or "merely a ‘rubber stamp’ "

  4. S F Market St. Healthcare LLC v. N.L.R.B

    570 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2009)   Cited 10 times

    No. 07-1439, 07-1502. Argued November 17, 2008. Decided June 30, 2009. John H. Douglas argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner. Amy H. Ginn, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ronald E. Meisburg, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Jill A. Griffin, Supervisory Attorney. Meredith L. Jason and Jason Walta, Attorneys, entered appearances. Before:

  5. Canteen Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    103 F.3d 1355 (7th Cir. 1997)   Cited 18 times
    Affirming NLRB's finding of substantial continuity where there was no temporal break in the operation of the two businesses

  6. Phelps Dodge Min. Co., Tyrone Br. v. N.L.R.B

    22 F.3d 1493 (10th Cir. 1994)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that "appreciation" bonuses, one of which was given to all employees in an amount equal to eighty hours of work at each employee's standard pay rate, were not subject to mandatory bargaining

  7. Intern. Ass'n of Machinists, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    595 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1978)   Cited 14 times
    Approving the Board's reasoning in Spruce Up

  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