(dismissing a union’s charge that the local government employer failed to negotiate with it regarding a change to hiring policy because the employer had no duty to negotiate with that union since it was not the exclusive bargaining agent for the affected employees); Oak Lawn Prof’l Fire Fighters Ass’n v. Village of Oak Lawn, Nos. S-CA-90-143, S-CA-91-29 (Ill. State Labor Relations Board Feb. 27, 1991) (nonprecedential binding recommendation) (dismissing a claim that an employer failed to negotiate with an employee organization that was not the recognized exclusive bargaining agent for the affected employees); Eatontown Bd. of Educ. v. Eatontown Teachers Ass’n, Secretarial & Clerical Unit, No. CO-90-192, D.U.P. No. 91-5 (N.J. Public Employee-Employer Relations Commission Aug. 15, 1990) (<HOLDING>). 31 NRS 288.150; NRS 288.027. 32 Doe v. Bryan,
holding that where the bargaining unit remains unchanged and a majority of the employees hired by the new employer are represented by a recently certified bargaining agent the successor employer must bargain with the incumbent union holding retirees are not employees within the bargaining unit holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work holding that an employee organization could not charge an employer with failure to negotiate when those issues were nonnegotiable managerial rights or when the allegedly improperly transferred unit work was not traditionally the work of the unit the organization represented holding that employer did not have duty to protect allegedly intoxicated employee from risk that employee would have automobile accident after leaving work