§
Worcester Mfg.

6 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. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 710 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

  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. Kessel Food Markets, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    868 F.2d 881 (6th Cir. 1989)   Cited 13 times
    Finding judges and administrative officers do not exceed the bounds of due process when they perform investigative and judicial functions

  5. N.L.R.B. v. North Carolina Coastal Motor Lines

    542 F.2d 637 (4th Cir. 1976)   Cited 8 times

    Nos. 76-1135, 76-1401. Argued August 25, 1976. Decided September 29, 1976. David F. Zorensky, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (John S. Irving, Jr., Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner in No. 76-1135 and for respondent in No. 76-1401. Robert A. Valois, Raleigh, N.C. (Frank P. Ward, Jr., Maupin, Taylor Ellis, Raleigh, N.C., on brief), for respondent in No. 76-1135 and for petitioner

  6. 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