Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sullivan Industries v. National Labor Relations Board, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, Intervenor

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided March 13, 1992No. 91-1169Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSilberman, Circuit Judge

I agree that. substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that New *906Sullivan committed an unfair labor practice when it refused to bargain with the union in August. But the second issue in- this case can be analyzed a good deal more manageably than does the majority, and once that is done, I think our reviewing role is more modest than my colleagues assume. The question presented under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 (NLRA), is, at its core, rather straightforward: if a successor employer refuses to recognize and bargain with an incumbent union in violation…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. National Labor Relations Board v. Gissel Packing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  5. Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API