§

KNOLLWOOD COUNTRY CLUB

02-CA-150410 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 9, 2016)
KNOLLWOOD COUNTRY CLUB

7 Cited authorities

  1. Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board

    379 U.S. 203 (1964)   Cited 734 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

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

    452 U.S. 666 (1981)   Cited 270 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

  3. Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.

    351 U.S. 149 (1956)   Cited 223 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Strong

    393 U.S. 357 (1969)   Cited 116 times
    Explaining that, though broad, the NLRA's grant of remedial power "does not authorize punitive measures"

  5. ITT Industries, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    413 F.3d 64 (D.C. Cir. 2005)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Describing the "inherent tension" between these interests (quoting Hillhaven , 336 N.L.R.B. at 650 )

  6. International U., U.M.W. of A. v. N.L.R.B

    257 F.2d 211 (D.C. Cir. 1958)   Cited 23 times
    Discussing the legislative history of the Taft-Hartley Act

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second