§

Jamestown Fabricated Steel & Supply, Inc.

362 NLRB No. 161 (N.L.R.B. 2015)
Jamestown Fabricated Steel & Supply, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Allentown Mack Sales & Service, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    522 U.S. 359 (1998)   Cited 424 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board "is not free to prescribe what inferences from the evidence it will accept and reject, but must draw all those inferences that the evidence fairly demands"

  2. 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

  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. 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]]."

  5. Williams Enterprises v. N.L.R.B

    956 F.2d 1226 (D.C. Cir. 1992)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Remanding to Board for determination of whether bargaining demand coincided with hiring of substantial and representative complement; successor immediately rehired nearly twenty percent of predecessor's employees and then "continually increased the size of its production staff" throughout next two months

  6. Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    117 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that, "[b]ecause affirmative bargaining orders interfere with the employee free choice that is a core principle of the Act," we "view them with suspicion" and demand special justification for them

  7. Exxel/Atmos, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    28 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1994)   Cited 28 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stressing appropriateness of bargaining order to remedy bad faith bargaining during certification year

  8. Prime Service, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    266 F.3d 1233 (D.C. Cir. 2001)   Cited 9 times

    No. 00-1306. Argued September 7, 2001. Decided October 12, 2001. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Harry J. Secaras argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Howard L. Bernstein. Steven B. Goldstein, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Rosenfeld, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong

  9. At Systems West, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    294 F.3d 136 (D.C. Cir. 2002)   Cited 2 times

    No. 01-1282. Argued May 13, 2002. Decided July 2, 2002. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Marta M. Fernandez argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs was Patrick W. Jordan. Jeffrey M. Hirsch, Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Rosenfeld, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate