TruServ Corp v. NLRB

254 F.3d 1105, 2001 WL 754958
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedAugust 21, 2001
Docket00-1356
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 254 F.3d 1105 (TruServ Corp v. NLRB) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
TruServ Corp v. NLRB, 254 F.3d 1105, 2001 WL 754958 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 00-1356 September Term, 2000

TruServ Corporation, f/k/a Cotter & Company, Petitioner

v.

National Labor Relations Board, Filed On: August 17, 2001 [618389] Respondent

Teamsters Local Union No. 293, Intervenor

On the Joint Petition for Rehearing by TruServ Corporation and the National Labor Relations Board

Before: Edwards, Rogers and Garland, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the joint petition for rehearing, it is

ORDERED that the joint petition for rehearing be granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the court's opinion filed on July 6, 2001 be amended as follows:

Page 2: Strike the final sentence on this page ("Because, however . . . to the Board.").

Page 17: Insert a new footnote at the end of the final sen-

tence on this page. The new footnote is to read:

Because we reverse the Board's finding that TruServe unlawfully implemented its Final Offer, including the TruServ health insurance plan option for employees, there is no occasion to address TruServe's contention that the Board's remedial order should be modified to provide that TruServ would owe no contribu-

tions to the Union's Welfare Fund for employees who had opted into the TruServe plan, or, alternatively, would receive a set off against claims it had paid for such employees.

Pages 19-20: Delete the last full paragraph beginning on page 19 and ending on page 20 ("Finally, the Company maintains that the Board's remedial order . . . (2d Cir. 1991).").

Page 20: Revise the last sentence of the opinion to read:

"Accordingly, we grant the petition in part and deny the petition in part."

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: Nancy G. Dunn Deputy Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Troy Grove v. NLRB
140 F.4th 506 (D.C. Circuit, 2025)
Hood River Distillers, Inc. v. NLRB
130 F.4th 204 (D.C. Circuit, 2025)
Troutbrook Company LLC v. NLRB
107 F.4th 994 (D.C. Circuit, 2024)
Thryv v. NLRB
102 F.4th 727 (Fifth Circuit, 2024)
Dish Network Corporation v. NLRB
953 F.3d 370 (Fifth Circuit, 2020)
Carey Salt Company v. NLRB
Fifth Circuit, 2014
Carey Salt Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
736 F.3d 405 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)
Comau, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
671 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Circuit, 2012)
Ahearn v. Remington Lodging & Hospitality
842 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (D. Alaska, 2012)
National Labor Relations Board v. Whitesell Corp.
638 F.3d 883 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
254 F.3d 1105, 2001 WL 754958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/truserv-corp-v-nlrb-cadc-2001.