§

Cadillac Asphalt Paving Company

07-CA-046464 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 16, 2004)
Cadillac Asphalt Paving Company

11 Cited authorities

  1. Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    482 U.S. 27 (1987)   Cited 371 times   13 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 498 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 480 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  4. Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Exec. Bd., Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union, AFL-CIO

    417 U.S. 249 (1974)   Cited 367 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding under NLRA that purchaser of hotel assets was not required to arbitrate with union about its decision not to hire all of seller’s employees

  5. Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    454 U.S. 404 (1982)   Cited 116 times
    Holding that courts must not "substitute [their] judgment for those of the Board with respect to the issues that Congress intended the Board should resolve"

  6. Southport Pet., Co. v. N.L.R.B

    315 U.S. 100 (1942)   Cited 187 times
    Ruling that dissolution of company and transfer of assets did not prevent enforcement of a Board order

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Advanced Stretchforming Intern

    233 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board is entitled to summary enforcement of unchallenged rulings

  8. Premium Foods, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    709 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1983)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that employees' requests for withdrawal cards, even if such requests indicated that the employees no longer wished to be members of the union, did “not necessarily indicate that [they] no longer wish to be represented by it”

  9. N.L.R.B. v. DeBartelo

    241 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that substantial continuity "is evaluated principally from the employees' perspective, the crucial question being whether those employees who have been retained will understandably view their job situations as essentially unaltered"

  10. Deferiet Paper Co. v. N.L.R.B

    235 F.3d 581 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 2 times

    No. 00-1067. Argued October 26, 2000. Decided December 29, 2000. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Daniel G. Rosenthal argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Donn C. Meindertsma and D. Scott Poley. Deirdre C. Fitzpatrick, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Leonard R. Page, General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General