§

County Agency Inc. and Esplanade Partners Ltd. d/b/a Esplanade Venture Partnership d/b/a The Esplana

369 N.L.R.B. 62 (N.L.R.B. 2020)
County Agency Inc. and Esplanade Partners Ltd. d/b/a Esplanade Venture Partnership d/b/a The Esplana

14 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 496 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. Boire v. Greyhound Corp.

    376 U.S. 473 (1964)   Cited 426 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding status of employer as independent contractor is immaterial because focus of joint employment inquiry is on employees, not employers

  5. 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”

  6. Caine v. Hardy

    503 U.S. 936 (1992)   Cited 103 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 / Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 doctrine

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc.

    691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982)   Cited 338 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that joint employer situation exists only when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees . . . [where] they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"

  8. U.S. Marine Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    944 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir. 1990)   Cited 48 times

    Nos. 89-2051, 89-2140 and 89-2152. Argued December 5, 1989. Decided October 18, 1990. Reheard En Banc June 11, 1991. Decided September 25, 1991. Fred G. Groiss, Quarles Brady, Milwaukee, Wis., James D. Holzhauer (argued), Mayer, Brown Platt, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners/cross-respondents. Kenneth R. Loebel (argued), Previant, Goldberg, Uelman, Gratz, Miller Brueggeman, Milwaukee, Wis., for intervening respondent, petioner. Steven B. Goldstein, Contempt Litigation Branch, Washington, D.C., Fred

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Mastro Plastics Corporation

    354 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1965)   Cited 96 times
    In Mastro, the relatives of two deceased discriminatees had testified as to the discriminatees' diligent searches for work.

  10. Paulsen ex rel. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. GVS Properties, LLC

    904 F. Supp. 2d 282 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 12 Civ. 4845(BMC). 2012-11-13 James G. PAULSEN, Regional Director of Region 29 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. GVS PROPERTIES, LLC, Respondent. Colleen P. Breslin, National Labor Relations Board, for Petitioner. Alexander Leong, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP, for Respondent. COGAN Colleen P. Breslin, National Labor Relations Board, for Petitioner. Alexander Leong, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP