Free Trial / Sign Up Products / Prices / Samples About Us / Contact FAQs Home
Latest employment law cases 
Summaries and links to full text
LawMemo - First in Employment Law Emailed directly to you
and online all the time
Latest Cases Advanced Search Law Firm Directory Arbitrator Directory Law School Directory Legal Resources / Memos
Employment Law Memo
Arbitration Law Memo
NLRB Law Memo
Employment Low Blog
Arbitration Law Blog
Employment Law 101
Articles
Supreme Court Cases
EEOC Info
NLRB Info

NLRB Law Memo 
Also available by email 

All Archives

« NLRB Law Memo 12/22/2008 | Main | NLRB Law Memo 01/05/2009 »

NLRB Law Memo 12/29/2008
by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

NLRB Law Memo 12/29/2008
by
LawMemo - First in Employment Law.
Also by email.

NLRB - Staff summarized 2 decisions.

Camaco Lorain Mfg. Plant (8-CA-36785; 353 NLRB No. 64) Lorain, OH Dec. 18, 2008.

The Board remanded the administrative law judge's bench decision for reexamination of the record evidence, and ordered the judge to provide a written decision containing further findings and analysis. In remanding the case, the Board expressed no opinion as to the correctness of the judge's original disposition of the merits of the contested complaint allegations.

(Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman participated.)

Charge filed by Auto Workers [UAW], Region 2B; complaint alleged violations of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3). Hearing at Cleveland, March 13-14, 2007. Adm. Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued his decision May 2, 2007.

***

Professional Janitorial Services of Houston, Inc. (16-CA-25491, 25780; 353 NLRB No. 65) Houston, TX Dec. 17, 2008.

The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, alleged to be a Burns successor employer, violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing to recognize and bargain with the Union. The Board agreed with the administrative law judge's conclusion that the Respondent is a successor employer, based on finding that the Union had majority status in an appropriate unit and that there was "substantial continuity" of operations between the Respondent and its predecessors. As such, the Board adopted the judge's finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) when it failed to recognize and bargain with the Union.

(Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman participated.)

Charges filed by Service Employees Local 5; complaint alleged violation of
Section 8(a)(5). Hearing at Houston, April 30 and May 1, 2008. Adm. Law
Judge Joel P. Biblowitz issued his decision Aug. 1, 2008.



LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.
LawMemo.Com

EEOC | NLRB | Supreme CourtEmployment Law BlogArbitration Blog | Employment Law 101

 
Google
 
Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. It does not include the Caselaw Database.