§

Dodge of Naperville, Inc. and Burke Automotive Group, Inc., d/b/a Naperville Jeep/Dodge, a Single Em

357 N.L.R.B. 2252 (N.L.R.B. 2012)
Dodge of Naperville, Inc. and Burke Automotive Group, Inc., d/b/a Naperville Jeep/Dodge, a Single Em

32 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 709 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"

  2. Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    460 U.S. 693 (1983)   Cited 309 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights

  3. First National Maintenance Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    452 U.S. 666 (1981)   Cited 268 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer has no duty to bargain over a decision to shut down part of its business purely for economic reasons

  4. Holly Farms Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    517 U.S. 392 (1996)   Cited 136 times
    Holding that where statute's meaning is obvious, courts and Board must defer to Congress's unambiguous intent, but where ambiguity exists, courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute

  5. Radio Union v. Broadcast Serv

    380 U.S. 255 (1965)   Cited 325 times
    Holding that two entities were a single employer and therefore that their gross receipts could be totaled together to establish jurisdiction under the National Labor Relations Act

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 263 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"

  7. H. K. Porter Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    397 U.S. 99 (1970)   Cited 222 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the NLRB is "without power to compel a company or a union to agree to any substantive contractual provision of a collective-bargaining agreement."

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

    691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982)   Cited 339 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"

  9. Labor Board v. Deena Artware

    361 U.S. 398 (1960)   Cited 139 times
    Ruling that derivative liability could be imposed on the basis of single employer status

  10. Vincent Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    209 F.3d 727 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 44 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Vincent Industrial, we directed the Board to premise every bargaining order on an "explicit[ balanc[ing][of] three considerations: (1) the employees' Section 7 rights [ 29 U.S.C. § 157]; (2) whether other purposes of the [NLRA] override the rights of employees to choose their bargaining representatives; and (3) whether alternative remedies are adequate to remedy the violations of the [NLRA]]."