Dana Corporation, Inc.

21 Cited authorities

Edison Co. v. Labor Board
305 U.S. 197 (1938) Cited 19,124 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay
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
Brooks v. Labor Board
348 U.S. 96 (1954) Cited 299 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
Garment Workers v. Labor Board
366 U.S. 731 (1961) Cited 213 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union cannot represent a group of employees for which it does not enjoy majority support
Electrical Workers v. Labor Board
366 U.S. 667 (1961) Cited 186 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union may picket a secondary employer only when the primary employer is at the job site
Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
517 U.S. 781 (1996) Cited 59 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that NLRB is due "considerable deference . . . by virtue of its charge to develop national labor policy"
Department of Treasury v. Galioto
477 U.S. 556 (1986) Cited 67 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an amendment that gave plaintiffs a new administrative remedy mooted constitutional challenges regarding equal protection and irrebuttable presumptions
Labor Bd. v. Greyhound Lines
303 U.S. 261 (1938) Cited 264 times
In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.
Adcock v. Freightliner LLC
550 F.3d 369 (4th Cir. 2008) Cited 83 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that concessions made by employer in a card-check/neutrality agreement do not represent a thing of monetary value to a union
Hotel Employees Local 57 v. Sage Hospitality
390 F.3d 206 (3d Cir. 2004) Cited 47 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a “projected stream of increased tax revenue” is not a proprietary interest “because it is not comparable to the financial interest that an ordinary market participant has in a project”

Dana Corporation, Inc.

21 Cited authorities

Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

Holding that the new employer must bargain with the old union, if the new employer is a true successor, and discussing factors

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

Holding that a union cannot represent a group of employees for which it does not enjoy majority support

Holding that a union may picket a secondary employer only when the primary employer is at the job site

Holding that NLRB is due "considerable deference . . . by virtue of its charge to develop national labor policy"

Holding that an amendment that gave plaintiffs a new administrative remedy mooted constitutional challenges regarding equal protection and irrebuttable presumptions

In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.

Holding that concessions made by employer in a card-check/neutrality agreement do not represent a thing of monetary value to a union

Holding that a “projected stream of increased tax revenue” is not a proprietary interest “because it is not comparable to the financial interest that an ordinary market participant has in a project”