text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
March 1, 2007
LOCAL 377, RWDSU, UFCW, PLAINTIFF,v.1864 TENANTS ASSOCIATION DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff, Local 377, RWDSU, UFCW, a union representing a residential superintendent, commenced this action under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185 (2000) to confirm an arbitration award against defendant, 1862-66 Third Avenue HDFC, Inc.,*fn1 his employer. Before the Court are plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The facts are not in dispute. Defendant employer voluntarily entered into a collective bargaining agreement that plaintiff union negotiated on behalf of a single residential superintendent.*fn2 By its terms, the collective bargaining agreement covered the period from June 1, 2001 to May 31, 2004. The agreement provided that at its expiration, the parties would meet to renegotiate a new agreement and that if they were unable to agree on new contract terms, the dispute should be submitted to binding interest arbitration. Upon the expiration of the agreement, a dispute arose and the parties were unable to agree on a new collective bargaining agreement to cover the superintendent. The union submitted the dispute for arbitration before the New York State Employment Relations Board. The employer, though it had adequate notice, did not participate in the arbitration in any way and did not appear at the scheduled hearing on October 11, 2005. On October 24, 2005, the arbitrator issued a written award imposing on the employer the terms of a new collective bargaining agreement covering the superintendent. The employer has refused to comply with the award. Plaintiff petitioned this Court to confirm the award.
Both parties agree that the central issue is whether an interest arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement covering only a single employee is enforceable. The employer argues that the collective bargaining agreement, and therefore the arbitration clause, is invalid under the "single-employee unit rule." The union contends that despite the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) unwillingness to certify single-employee units, the collective bargaining agreement is a valid contract and, even if unenforceable under federal law, is enforceable under New York state statutory and common law.
A. Jurisdiction
Though the parties do not contest the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, we note preliminarily that the Court has jurisdiction under § 301 of the LMRA. Section 301(a) gives the federal courts jurisdiction over "[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce.without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties." 29 U.S.C. § 185. While the NLRB will not exercise jurisdiction over representational disputes involving bargaining units with less than two employees, see, e.g., Stack Electric, 290 N.L.R.B. 575, 577 (1988), courts in the Ninth and Seventh Circuits have held that the district courts have jurisdiction over § 301 actions even where the contract involved covers only a single employee. General Teamsters Union Local No. 174 v. Trick & Murray, Inc., 828 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1987); Motion Picture Projectionists & Video Technicians, Local 110 v. Fred Corp., 845 F. Supp. 1255, 1257-58 (N.D. Ill. 1994). Like these courts, we note that the jurisdiction of the district courts is independent from the jurisdiction of the NLRB, and read the broad grant of jurisdiction in § 301 to include suits on contracts covering a single employee.
It is well established that federal courts have jurisdiction under § 301 to review labor arbitration awards as arbitration is a matter of contract. Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 (1960).
B. Preemption
The union argues that, federal law notwithstanding, collective bargaining agreements covering a single-employee unit are enforceable as a matter of New York law. The union points to In re New York State Labor Relations Board v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 52 N.Y.S.2d 590, 593 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1944), where a New York court held that, at least in some circumstances, an employer could be compelled to bargain with a union representing single-employee units under the New York State Labor Relations Act, Labor Law § 700. Further, the union argues that the collective bargaining agreement is enforceable as a matter of state contract law.
The union argues that under San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959), state law is not preempted because entering a collective bargaining agreement covering a single-employee unit is neither prohibited nor protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). We need not, however, reach the question of Garmon preemption in this case. State law is clearly preempted by § 301.*fn3
The Supreme Court has made clear that, in addition to granting jurisdiction to the federal courts, § 301 creates a body of substantive federal common law governing the interpretation of labor agreements. See Local 174, Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95, 103-04 (1962); Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 456-57 (1957). Section 301 preempts state law for claims arising out of a contract between an employer and a labor organization. See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 23 (1983); Lucas Flour, 369 U.S. at 103-04.
The dispute in this case is over a right created only by a contract between a union and an employer-the right to enforce an arbitration award. Section 301 preempts state statutory and contract law and the Court must look to federal common law to determine the validity of the arbitration provision of the collective bargaining agreement. The union's arguments under state law are inapposite.
Having determined that state law is preempted, we turn now to federal law. The employer argues that it is not bound by the interest arbitration clause because the collective bargaining agreement was void under the "single-employee unit rule." The NLRB has long held that it is not an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain with a union representing a single-employee unit. Nor does it violate the statutory duty to bargain under § 8(a)(5) for an employer to repudiate a collective bargaining agreement covering only a single-employee unit. The employer contends that this Court should go one step further and hold that such a collective bargaining agreement is void and unenforceable as a matter of contract law. This is a matter of first impression for this Court, though courts in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits have weighed in on the issue.
A. The Single-Employee Unit Rule in the NLRB
The single-employee unit rule has its roots in a certification decision by the NLRB. The NLRA creates a duty for an employer to bargain collectively with the representative selected by a majority of its employees. See NLRA §§ 8(a)(5), (b)(3), 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(5), (b)(3). The NLRA also provides for a certification process by which the NLRB will certify a labor organization as the exclusive representative for an appropriate unit of employees. See NLRA § 9, 29 U.S.C. § 159. In Luckenbach Steamship Co., 2 N.L.R.B. 181, 193 (1936), however, the NLRB made it clear that it will not certify a union representing a one-person bargaining unit under § 9(c). The Board explained that "the principle of collective bargaining presupposes that there is more than one eligible person who desires to bargain. The Act therefore does not empower the Board to certify where only one employee is involved." Id. The NLRB went on to limit its holding to the question of certification, stating: "This conclusion does not mean that a single employee may not designate a representative to act for him; he had such a right without the Act, and the Act in no way limits that right. By the same token, this conclusion in no way limits the protection which the Act otherwise gives such an employee." Id.
In Foreign Car Center, Inc., 129 N.L.R.B. 319 (1960), the NLRB expanded the single-employee unit rule first stated in Luckenbach. The employer in Foreign Car repudiated in midterm a collective bargaining agreement covering a single mechanic. Id. at 319-20. The mechanic's union complained that the repudiation and subsequent refusal to negotiate with the union was an unfair labor practice. The NLRB held that an employer's refusal to bargain with a representative of a single-employee unit does not violate the statutory duty to bargain under § 8(a)(5). Id. at 320. The employer's repudiation of the contract was not an unfair labor practice under the NLRA. As in Luckenbach, the NLRB was careful to limit its holding to the power of the NLRB to compel an employer to bargain with a single-employee unit. Id. Citing an earlier NLRB case, Louis Rosenberg Inc., 122 N.L.R.B. 1450 (1959), the Board stated that "the Act does not preclude bargaining with a union on behalf of a single employee, if an employer is willing." Foreign Car, 129 N.L.R.B. at 320.
In Louis Rosenberg, the NLRB held that even though the Board will not certify a single-employee unit, such a unit is not inherently inappropriate under § 9(a) and a single employee may, without violating the NLRA, designate a union to bargain on his behalf with the employer. 122 N.L.R.B. at 1453. In that case the employer had entered into a union security contract with a union representing a single chauffer. See id. at 1463. The Board held that the contract covering the chauffer did not violate the NLRA and was a valid collective bargaining agreement. Id. at 1453, 1464.*fn4
These three cases make it clear that the NLRA does not compel an employer to bargain with a union on behalf of a single employee and that the NLRB will not affirmatively assist a single-employee unit through certification or action against an employer who refuses to bargain. At the same time, the cases also show that nothing in the NLRA prevents an employer from bargaining with a union representing a single employee or from voluntarily entering a collective bargaining agreement covering a single-employee unit. While Foreign Car makes it clear that an employer who repudiates a collective bargaining agreement covering a single-employee unit does not commit an unfair labor practice under the NLRA, the case says nothing about the union's ability to sue in federal court under § 301 for breach of contract. Louis Rosenberg implies that a collective bargaining agreement covering a single-employee unit is a valid contract that would be enforceable under § 301.
Later NLRB cases have followed the holding in Foreign Car that an employer's repudiation of a collective bargaining agreement is not an unfair labor practice under the NLRA, but the language of these cases has grown expansive to the effect of implying that that an employer has a right to repudiate such an agreement. See, e.g., Haas Garage Door Co., 308 N.L.R.B. 1186 (1992) ("[The single-employee unit] rule provides that when a unit consists of no more than a single permanent employee at all material times, an employer has no statutory duty to bargain and thus, will not be found in violation of the Act for disavowing a bargaining agreement or refusing to bargain."); D&B Masonry, 275 N.L.R.B. 1403, 1408 (1985) ("It is settled that if an employer employs one or fewer unit employees on a permanent basis that the employer, without violating Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, may withdraw recognition from a union, repudiate its contract with the union, or unilaterally change employees' terms and conditions of employment without affording the union an opportunity to bargain."); see also Stack Electric, Inc., 290 N.L.R.B. 575 (1988) (same). This language, of course, is dicta as the enforceability of these collective bargaining agreements was not before the NLRB. No NLRB case has squarely addressed the limiting language in Foreign Car and Luckenbach, and no case has rejected Louis Rosenberg's holding that a single-employee unit is not inherently inappropriate and that a contract covering such a unit does not violate the NLRA.
Of all of the NLRB cases, Sunray Ltd., 258 N.L.R.B. 517 (1981) provides the most support for the employer's contention that a collective bargaining agreement covering a single-employee unit is void. In Sunray, the employer, a construction subcontractor, entered into a § 8(f) pre-hire collective bargaining agreement*fn5 with a union, Local 12, covering employees performing work over which the union had jurisdiction. Id. at 517. At the time of the agreement, the employer had only a single employee, who promptly joined the union. Later the employer's workforce increased to five employees and the employer petitioned the NLRB under § 9(c) to hold an election to determine whether Local 12 or a competing union, Local 1184, represented a majority of the employees in the relevant unit and was therefore entitled to be the exclusive bargaining representative. Id. Local 12 argued that its pre-existing collective bargaining agreement barred the election petition because it had achieved status as the majority representative when the sole employee joined the union, thereby converting its § 8(f) pre-hire relationship with the employer into a § 9(a) relationship.*fn6 The Board held that Local 12's collective bargaining agreement covering the single employee did not bar the election petition. Id. at 518. The Board reasoned that because it would not certify a single-employee unit as appropriate in a representation proceeding, the mere fact that the sole employee joined Local 12 did not make the union the chosen representative of the majority of the employees for the purposes of § 9(a). Id.
The NLRB stated, in dicta (and without citation), that "the Board will not enforce a contract covering a single-person unit." Id. But § 301 places the primary responsibility for enforcing collective bargaining agreements on the federal courts, not the NLRB. See Pari Mutuel Clerks Union v. Fair Grounds Corp., 703 F.2d 913, 917-918 (5th Cir.) ("The LMRA establishes two primary mechanisms for promoting the goal of industrial stability: private enforcement of collective bargaining agreements through section 301 and government sanctions for unfair labor practices through the NLRB."), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 846 (1983). The Board was not asked to determine any rights under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Moreover, the NLRB made no attempt to distinguish or overturn the much more limited approach of Foreign Car, Luckenbach, and Louis Rosenberg. At its core Sunray remains a decision about a certification petition. The Board showed its concern for employee representation when it noted that "the unit is now five times the size it was when the 1978 contract was executed and, as the Union has never enjoyed majority status in the larger unit found appropriate here, we would not hold such a contract to be a bar to an election petition." Sunray, 258 N.L.R.B. at 518. Sunray should be read as a commitment to the principle that a union cannot attempt to entrench itself as the exclusive bargaining representative for a group of employees simply because it represented the first employee in a growing unit. Cf. General Extrusion Co., 121 N.L.R.B. 1165, 1167 (1958) (holding that a collective bargaining agreement will not bar an election petition if it is executed prior to a substantial increase in personnel).
B. Courts' Application of the Single-Employee Unit Rule
While neither the Second Circuit nor this Court has considered the applicability of the single-employee unit rule in § 301 actions, several courts in other circuits have seized on the NLRB's broad language and interpreted its holdings that repudiating a collective bargaining agreement covering a single-employee unit is not an unfair labor practice to mean that such an agreement is unenforceable and the employer may repudiate it at any time without being liable for breach of contract.
The Ninth Circuit considered the single-employee unit rule in Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Westlake Development, 53 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 1995). There the union and employer entered into a § 8(f) pre-hire collective bargaining agreement which, in addition to setting wages and terms of employment, required the employer to make fringe benefit contributions to the Trust Fund on behalf of employees and contained an arbitration clause. Id. at 981. After making contributions as required for 23 years, the employer notified that union that it considered the collective bargaining agreement unenforceable because it had employed only a single covered employee for the last three years and had no plans to hire more employees in the future. Id. The union brought an action under § 301 to recover damages for fringe benefit contributions due after the employer's unilateral repudiation of the contract and to confirm an arbitration award stemming from the employer's use of nonunion employees after the repudiation. Id.
The Ninth Circuit held that the employer's unilateral repudiation of the collective bargaining agreement was lawful under the single-employee unit rule. Id. at 982-83. The court relied on the expansive language in some of the later NLRB cases, which the court observed, "speak not only in terms of the standard application of the one-employee unit rule (where there is no statutory obligation to bargain in a representation proceeding), but also directly in terms of lawful unilateral repudiation of section 8(f) agreements where there is a single (or no) employee unit." Id. at 983. The court reasoned that because the single-employee unit rule "essentially dissolves the bargaining unit" because the NLRB will not certify such a unit, "it seems appropriate to treat repudiation under the single-employee unit rule as equivalent to a repudiation resulting from decertification of the bargaining representative." Id. at 982. The court held that once the employer had provided the union with actual notice of the repudiation, the agreement was void. Id. at 984. Therefore the union could not recover the fringe benefits contributions on a breach of contract theory and there was no contractual basis for arbitration. Id.
The Seventh Circuit adopted a similar view in J.W. Peters, Inc. v. Bridge Structural & Reinforcing Ironworkers, 398 F.3d 967 (7th 2005), holding that where an employer employs "fewer than two employees during the relevant period, the company's unilateral repudiation of the contract would, as a matter of law, relieve it of its contractual obligations to arbitrate." Id. at 975. There the employer sent a letter to the union purporting to repudiate a § 8(f) pre-hire agreement because it had not employed any ironworkers in the relevant unit for more than two years. Id. at 970. The union commenced arbitration and the employer filed an action under § 301 to stay the arbitration and for a declaratory judgment that the collective bargaining agreement was no longer in effect. Id. at 970-71. The employer also petitioned the NLRB for a representation hearing to determine the union's majority status, but the Board dismissed the petition, finding representation proceedings unwarranted because there were no employees employed in the relevant unit. Id. at 971.
Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd, 461 U.S. 260 (1983), the union argued that there was a "critical distinction" between the statutory duty to bargain under § 8(a)(5) and the employer's contractual obligations under the collective bargaining agreement. J.W. Peters, 398 F.3d at 975. The Seventh Circuit, however, explicitly rejected the contention that the NLRB cases stand for the limited proposition that the single-employee unit rule applies only the statutory duty to bargain, not to the validity of contractual obligations under a collective bargaining agreement. Id. at 974. Like the court in Laborers Health & Welfare, the Seventh Circuit relied on the expansive language in the later NLRB cases. Id. ("[T]he Board's decisions explicitly allow an employer, more generally, to repudiate a pre-hire agreement and discontinue its duties under the agreement when it employs no more than one employee in the relevant unit.") (citing Sunray, 258 N.L.R.B. at 518). But the court also considered the NLRB's rejection of the representation petition, finding it "illogical" to continue to bind the employer to a pre-hire agreement simply because it had no employees who could reject the union in a Board-conducted election. Id. at 975.
Federal district courts considering the single-employee unit rule generally have ruled consistently with Laborers Health & Welfare and J.W. Peters. In Chicago Truck Drivers v. Pratt & Lambert, Inc., No. 89 C 5657, 1989 WL 157270 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 1989), the employer repudiated a collective bargaining agreement midterm and refused to engage in arbitration as provided in the agreement, claiming that it was no longer binding because the number of employees in the covered unit fell to one. The district court dismissed the union's action under § 301 to enforce the contract because the premise of a collective bargaining agreement is that it covers a "collective," i.e., more than one employee. Id. at *3. When that premise is absent, the court reasoned, "a fundamental premise of the bargain on which the contract is based no longer applies, and therefore.the employer may repudiate the contract..and may not be made to comply with its terms." Id.
In Motion Picture Projectionists v. Fred Corp., 845 F. Supp. 1255 (N.D. Ill. 1994), the district court dismissed a suit under § 301 for violation of a collective bargaining agreement because the covered unit consisted of only a single permanent employee. Relying on the expansive language in the NLRB cases the court held that the employer's repudiation was valid even though the employer had clearly breached the terms of the agreement. Id. at 1259. In Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. Local Union No. 7, 15 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D. Mass. 1998), a district court in Massachusetts relied on Laborers Health & Welfare to hold that an employer was entitled to repudiate a thirty-year-old, self-renewing § 8(f) pre-hire agreement when there had been no employees in the unit for over ten years. Id. at 164. The court held that because the agreement was repudiated, there was no contractual basis for arbitration of any disputes arising after the repudiation. Id. at 166.
Most recently, in M.R.S. Enterprises, Inc. v. Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n, 429 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D.D.C. 2006), the D.C. district court discussed the single-employee unit rule in a § 301 action to confirm an arbitration award stemming from a §8(f) pre-hire agreement. The employer lost in arbitration, but claimed that the arbitration award was moot because it had previously repudiated the collective bargaining agreement when it notified the union that it no longer employed any sheet metal workers. Id. at 76. In dicta, the court noted that there is an exception to the general rule that an employer cannot unilaterally terminate a collective bargaining agreement where the bargaining unit is reduced to one employee or fewer. Id. at 81 (citing Laborers Health & Welfare, 53 F.3d at 982). The court explained that the "rationale for this exception is that when the work force is reduced to one or fewer employees, the bargaining unit is dissolved and the union can no longer hold majority status." Id. The court went on to find, however, that the employer had not met its burden of showing that it employed one or fewer sheet metal workers and therefore the single-employee unit rule was inapplicable. Id. at 81-82.
C. Rationales for the Single-Employee Unit Rule
In extending the NLRB's limited single-employee unit rule to mean that an employer may freely repudiate a collective bargaining agreement covering a single-employee unit without liability for breach of contract, courts have relied on four main rationales. Ultimately the Court finds none of them persuasive in this case.
1. Plain Meaning
The plain meaning of the NLRA underlies the NLRB's original decisions in Luckenbach and Foreign Car where the Board explained that by its very nature, collective bargaining presupposes that there is more than one employee who wises to bargain and therefore the statute does not permit the Board to certify a single-employee unit or to compel an employer to bargain with one. See Luckenbach, 2 N.L.R.B. at 193; Foreign Car, 129 N.L.R.B. at 320. But the NLRB was very careful to limit the reach of its holding to cases where a single-employee unit was asserting rights created by the NLRA for a collective. The Board stressed that the Act does not limit the pre-existing right of a single employee to designate a representative to bargain on his behalf, Luckenbach, 2 N.L.R.B. at 193, nor does it limit the ability of that representative to bargain with an employer who is willing to bargain, Foreign Car, 129 N.L.R.B. at 320, or even to enter a collective bargaining agreement with a willing employer, Louis Rosenberg, 122 N.L.R.B. at 1453.
The court in J.W. Peters found textual support for expanding the single-employee unit rule in § 9(a) which defines "exclusive representatives." The section provides: "Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such a unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.." 29 U.S.C. § 159(a). The court emphasized Congress's use of the words "majority" and "employees" to show that more than one employee was required to make a collective bargaining agreement valid. J.W. Peters, 398 F.3d at 975. This interpretation, however, was flatly rejected by the NLRB in Louis Rosenberg. There, in construing the same section, the Board followed the "basic rule of statutory construction that the plural includes the singular unless the context indicates otherwise," and held that a single-employee unit was appropriate under § 9(a). Louis Rosenberg, 122 N.L.R.B. at 1453; see supra note 4.
In short, nothing in the plain meaning of the NLRA says that a collective bargaining agreement coving a single-employee unit is not an enforceable contract.
2. Premise of Contract is a Collective of Employees
The court in Chicago Truck Drivers justified its application of the single-employee unit rule by saying that it is a "fundamental premise" of a collective bargaining agreement that it cover more than one employee and when that premise no longer applies, the contract is unenforceable. 1989 WL 157270 at *3. The court made no attempt to couch this reasoning in typical contract law terms of mistake or impossibility, but even if we assume that a "fundamental" change in circumstances would allow a party to legitimately repudiate the contract, such reasoning would have little force in this case. Here both the employer and the union were fully aware that there was only one employee in the unit at the time that the collective bargaining agreement was executed (and nothing in the record indicates that additional employees were foreseen). This is not a case where the union and the employer negotiated a collective bargaining agreement covering a larger unit that was later reduced to a single employee. The reasoning in Chicago Truck Drivers, even if it is valid, is inapposite.
3. Inability of Single Employees to Hold Majority Status
The court in M.R.S. Enterprises said that the rationale for allowing an employer to repudiate a collective bargaining agreement that covers only a single-employee unit is that a union cannot hold majority status when there is only one employee. 429 F. Supp. 2d at 81. If a union does not have majority status, it cannot be the exclusive bargaining representative under § 9(a) and therefore would have no power to enter into a binding collective bargaining agreement with the employer.*fn7 See International Ladies' Garment Workers Union v. NLRB, 366 U.S. 731, 736-38 (1961). The rationale in M.R.S. Enterprises appears to be undermined by the holding in Louis Rosenberg that there is nothing inherently inappropriate about a union bargaining on behalf of a single-employee unit. In fact, adopting the reading of "majority" in M.R.S. Enterprises would require rejecting the NLRB's reading of § 9(a) in Louis Rosenberg, 122 N.L.R.B. at 1453. See also supra note 4. Moreover, it seems illogical to say that a union cannot attain majority status when there is only one employee when it usually will be the case, as it is here, that the union representing a single employee enjoys unanimous support.
4. NLRB's Unwillingness to Certify Should be Treated the Same as Decertification
The Ninth Circuit, in Laborers Health & Welfare, reasoned that because the NLRB will not act on behalf of a single-employee unit (to certify or find unfair labor practices), the single-employee unit rule essentially dissolves the bargaining unit. 53 F.3d at 982. Therefore a collective bargaining agreement covering such a unit should be treated the same as an agreement where the bargaining representative had been decertified-the agreement would be unenforceable. Id. This appears to be a misreading of the NLRB cases on the single-employee unit rule. Louis Rosenberg made clear that a single-employee unit was not inherently inappropriate under § 9(a), despite the NLRB's unwillingness to certify a bargaining representative for such a unit. 122 N.L.R.B. at 1453. Nothing in Foreign Car or the later NLRB cases contradicts this holding.
Part of the difficulty with Laborers Health & Welfare is that the case stems from a § 8(f) pre-hire agreement. Section 8(f) allows employers and unions in the construction industry to enter collective bargaining agreements without first establishing the majority status of the union. Prior to the NLRB's holding in John Deklewa & Sons, 282 N.L.R.B. 1375 (1987), enforced sub nom., Iron Workers Local 3 v. NLRB, 843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 889 (1988), an employer could freely and unilaterally repudiate a pre-hire agreement until the union established that it had the support of the majority of employees in the unit, thereby converting the union from § 8(f) status to § 9(a) status. See Whiting-Turner, 15 F. Supp. 2d at 164. In Deklewa, the NLRB abandoned this approach, holding that pre-hire agreements are enforceable and that employers could not repudiate them without showing, in a Board-conducted decertification election, that the union lacked majority support. 282 N.L.R.B. at 1385 . This presents a difficulty for a single employee covered by a § 8(f) agreement who wishes to be represented by a different union.*fn8 The only way for the employee to escape the dictates of the pre-hire agreement and obtain representation by the union of his choice would be to file a petition with the NLRB to certify the replacement union as his exclusive bargaining representative. But under the single-employee unit rule, the NLRB would not entertain such a petition. See Luckenbach, 2 N.L.R.B. at 193. The Ninth Circuit solved this quandary by holding that § 8(f) pre-hire agreements covering only a single employee are not enforceable. Ultimately the Ninth Circuit's reasoning is rooted in a concern about representation and union entrenchment.
This concern is also evident in J.W. Peters, where the Seventh Circuit registered its unwillingness to continue to bind an employer to a pre-hire bargaining agreement simply because it did not have any employees who could reject the union in a board conducted election. 398 F.3d at 975. The Seventh Circuit was concerned with the union's ability to entrench itself through a pre-hire agreement that would prevent the employer from extricating itself even when it became clear that the union no longer enjoyed majority support because there were no employees in the unit. Of course, on its facts, J.W. Peters is distinguishable from the instant case because the unit in this case has an employee who supports the union and who, if the employer filed a decertification petition, would have an opportunity to reject the union.
These representation and entrenchment concerns are not as strong outside the context of a § 8(f) pre-hire agreement. Outside the construction industry, in order to form a valid collective bargaining agreement, the union must have majority support within the bargaining unit at the time the contract is executed. See International Ladies', 366 U.S. at 736-38. This is true even when an employer voluntarily recognizes a union. Id. Therefore there is much less cause for concern that a union which never had majority support could entrench itself through a collective bargaining agreement covering only a single employee.
Representation concerns remain where a single-employee unit grows and a majority of the new employees do not want the same union to represent them, but are barred from filing a representation petition by a collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated on behalf of the first employee. This was the NLRB's concern in Sunray. This problem, however, is not limited to single-employee units. Whenever any bargaining unit grows, a new majority may favor a different union or none at all. But the NLRB has dealt with this problem generally, see, e.g., General Extrusion Co., 121 N.L.R.B. 1165, 1167 (1958) (holding that a collective bargaining agreement will not bar an election petition if it is executed prior to a substantial increase in personnel), and more specifically with regard to single-employee units in Sunray, 258 N.L.R.B. at 518 (holding that a § 8(f) collective bargaining agreement covering a single-employee unit will not bar an election petition after the unit has grown).
The representation concerns that appear to underlie the decisions in Laborers Health & Welfare and J.W. Peters are not present in this case. Here, there is no dispute that bargaining unit at all times consisted of a single employee who supported the union as his representative. The employer voluntarily entered the collective bargaining agreement with the union recognizing that it covered a single employee who supported the union. The Court does not see how the representational rights of that employee could be furthered by granting the employer the right to unilaterally repudiate the agreement with the union that the employee chose. Moreover the Court finds unpersuasive the Ninth and Seventh Circuits' interpretations of the reach of the single-employee unit rule under NLRB caselaw.
D. Collective Bargaining Agreements Covering Single-Employee Units are Valid Contracts
Enforceable Under § 301
As discussed above, nothing in the plain meaning of the NLRA indicates that a collective bargaining agreement covering a single-employee unit is not an enforceable contract. Nothing in the NLRB's holdings that it will not certify a representative of a single-employee unit, compel an employer to bargain with such a representative, or find a statutory violation of the duty to bargain when an employer repudiates a collective bargaining agreement covering such a unit addresses the contractual obligations of an employer when it voluntarily enters an agreement covering such a unit. And the Court finds unpersuasive the rationales that other courts have used to extend the NLRB's limited single-employee unit rule to mean that employers may freely repudiate collective bargaining agreements without incurring liability for breach of contract. We therefore hold that where an employer voluntarily enters a collective bargaining agreement covering a single-employee unit, such an agreement imposes binding contractual duties on the parties that may be enforced in a suit under § 301, even if the employer's breach or repudiation of the contract would not constitute a violation of the statutory duty to bargain under § 8(a)(5).
The Court notes, as did the Supreme Court in McNeff Inc. v. Todd, 461 U.S. 260, 267 (1983), that there is a "critical distinction" between an employer's statutory duty to bargain under § 8(a)(5) and an employer's contractual obligations under a collective bargaining agreement. Cf. Local Union 257, IBEW v. Sebastian Electric, 121 F.3d 1180, 1185 (8th Cir. 1997) ("The fact that the employer may have had no statutory duty to bargain" because the union had not attained majority status "did not eliminate [the employer's] contractual obligations" under a § 8(f) pre-hire agreement to submit to interest arbitration.). See generally 1 N. Peter Lareau, Labor & Employment Law § 12.04(6) (Matthew Bender 2006) ("[A]n employer is free to withdraw recognition from a union representing a bargaining unit that consists of a single employee..However, although the employer will be relieved of its statutory bargaining obligation, its obligations under any collective bargaining agreement covering the remaining employee may continue."). Congress intended § 301 as "statutory recognition of the collective bargaining agreement as a valid, binding and enforceable contract.." S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 17 (1947), reprinted in 1 NLRB Leg. Hist. of the LMRA 1947, at 423 (1948). Courts have noted that the Congress established two distinct mechanisms "for promoting the goal of industrial stability: private enforcement of collective bargaining agreements through section 301 and government sanctions for unfair labor practices through the NLRB." Pari Mutuel Clerks Union v. Fair Grounds Corp., 703 F.2d 913, 917-918 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 846 (1983). While it is true that traditional contract rules do not always rigidly apply to collective bargaining agreements, courts must look to traditional state contract law, when it is not inconsistent with federal labor policy, to form the content of the federal common law governing labor agreements. See, e.g., United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Champion Int'l Corp., 908 F.2d 1252, 1256 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 456 (1957)). The focus in interpreting collective bargaining agreements under § 301, as it is in interpreting any contract, is on the intent of the parties; in this case, it is clear that the parties intended to be bound by the agreement.
In this case, the employer was not forced to enter a contract with the union by any statutory duty; rather the employer voluntarily entered the collective bargaining agreement knowing that it covered only a single employee.*fn9 Such a contract would be a binding obligation in the absence of federal labor law-it is merely a case of an employee appointing an agent to negotiate terms and conditions of employment on his behalf and the employer voluntarily entering an agreement with the agent. The NLRB made clear in Luckenbach that nothing in the NLRA limits the right of an employee to designate a representative to bargain on his behalf. 2 N.L.R.B. at 193 ("he had such a right before the Act and the Act in no way limits that right"). Foreign Car and Louis Rosenberg make clear that the NLRA does not prohibit an employer from voluntarily bargaining or entering a contract with a union representing a single employee. The Court cannot see how the logical next step would be that such a contract, neither compelled nor prohibited by the NLRA, is unenforceable. None of the traditional contract defenses like mistake, impossibility, or duress would apply simply because this contract covered only a single employee.
The employer voluntarily entered the collective bargaining agreement and, in the first paragraph of the agreement, voluntarily recognized the union as the exclusive bargaining agent of its single employee. (Compl. Ex. A ¶ 1.) The employer abided by the terms of the contract for three years and took advantage of the benefits of industrial stability and limitations on union action that a valid collective bargaining agreement provides. Even if the Court were to question the enforceability of a collective bargaining agreement covering a single-employee unit, equitable estoppel may preclude the employer from asserting that the single-employee unit is inappropriate after voluntarily recognizing the union. See Alpha Associates, 344 N.L.R.B. No. 95, 2005 NLRB LEXIS 256 at *7-8 (2005) (holding that employer is estopped from withdrawing earlier voluntary recognition of a union on the grounds that the union lacked majority support or that the bargaining unit was inappropriate at the time of recognition). As we hold that the collective bargaining agreement was an enforceable contract, however, we need not reach the question of estoppel in this case.
Having held that the collective bargaining agreement covering the single superintendent was an enforceable contract, we turn now to the arbitration award. There is no dispute that the collective bargaining agreement contained an interest arbitration clause providing that if the parties are unable to agree to the terms of a new agreement the dispute will be submitted to binding arbitration. Courts have generally held interest arbitration clauses enforceable. See, e.g., Sheet Metal Workers, Local Union No. 24 v. Architectural Metal Works, Inc., 259 F.3d 418, 428-29 (6th Cir. 2001).
There is no dispute that the employer had notice of the arbitration hearing and failed to appear. Moreover, the employer made no attempt to advise the arbitrator prior to the arbitration that it was questioning the arbitrator's authority, nor did it file a petition with the court to vacate the arbitration award.*fn10 Cf. Int'l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, Local Union 545 v. Hope Elec. Corp., 380 F.3d 1084, 1101-03 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that a party may be deemed to have waived substantive objections to an arbitrator's jurisdiction where it fails to notify the arbitrator of those objections or its refusal to participate in the arbitration and fails to timely file a petition to vacate the award in court; a party may not raise an objection to the arbitrator's authority for the first time as a defense to a motion to confirm an arbitration award) (citing Local Union No. 36, Sheet Metal Workers v. Atlas Air Conditioning, 926 F.2d 770, 771-72 (8th Cir. 1991)). The arbitrator issued an award based on the authority delegated by the terms of the contract. A court must confirm an arbitration award that "draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement." United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597 (1960). If the "arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, the fact that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision." Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America, 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Courts give even greater deference to an arbitrator's decision in interest arbitration than in grievance arbitration because the arbitrator is "fashioning new contractual obligations." Architectural Metal Works, 259 F.3d at 429.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Slide to see the images
My name is Penny and they estimate me to be about 2-3 years old. I was rescued off the streets along with my 2 kittens. My foster mom thinks I'm a beautiful shade of orange with some cool markings. I get along great with all my other foster siblings and would love to have a family of my own to love. I'm Felv/FIV negative, Spayed and microchipped. I know what a litter box is used for even though I lived on the streets. Please give me a furever home

subset: commoncrawl


text:
[Eos 450D] [1400] Arriving at portoroz airport from donauwörth-genderkingen.
Warm and quiet evening at Suceava...
[Eos 450D]
[Canon EOS 400D]. At the New Year's Day Fly-In.
Club Aereo de Santiago´s Airplane, as you can see, it has a 80 years sticker at the tail
My 10th photo at Jetphotos!!, after this I hope to continue uploading photos to this database, also I what to dedicate this photo to all pilots and specially to my friend Carlos Valle, future pilo... (more)
New reg. to the database
The only aircraft parked at Santo Domingo, with poor meteorological conditions
Previously N494. Built in 1979. With thanks to The Pilot Centre. Now owned by Bickertons Aerodromes Ltd.


text:
Delicate asian girl smacks dicks
Duration: 11min 59sec Views: 599 Submitted: 9 months ago Submitted by:
Description: Terabytes of HD quality porn are here! A delicate asian girl opens her mouth and smacks fat bold dicks making them pulsate with strong sexual desire! Her horny partners impatiently mill around her head offering his cocks, and she willingly sucks and jerks them one after another. As a special reward she gets a sweet amount of fresh jizz in her throat!
Categories: Threesome Blowjob Hand Job Cowgirl Shaved Pussy Cum in Mouth
Tags: Caribbeancom


text:
You missed it This great deal for All-American Sports Center is over. But don't despair, we've got more great deals every day.
Related Deals That You May Like
JCPenney Portraits
Holiday Card Photo Session and Up to 60 Cards
Cleveland Westside$78$15
JCPenney Portraits
Photography Session with Prints and Digital Image
Cleveland Westside$119$16
Own A Napa Vineyard
1-Year Ownership of 2 Vines
Cleveland Westside$198$119
Picture People
In-Studio Photo Shoot with Portrait Sheets + a CD
Cleveland Westside$203$22
All-American Sports Center
One Sport Center Fun Pass
In the Heart of It All, springtime means going on outings with your friends. And while a yearly trip to Geneva-on-the-Lake might be a blast, today's deal offers a hole-sum alternative. At All-American Sports Center -- the sprawling family-fun complex in North Ridgeville -- you can pitch in $10 (regularly $20) for a Fun Pass that entitles you to one round of miniature golf, one medium bucket of driving range golf balls to use on the lighted range or grass tees, and six batting-cage tokens. This deal also comes with a large pop to quench your thirst after you've worked up a sweat with all the activity. And with a new way to usher in the season, you're certain to hit a home run with your buddies -- if not in the batting cage.
Want more? Follow All-American Sports Center on Facebook.
PAID VALUE EXPIRES ON December 5, 2021
PROMOTIONAL VALUE EXPIRES ON August 1, 2012


text:
Strongbow Fund Form D
The Massachusetts-based Strongbow Fund Ltd. filed FormD regarding $74.43 million offering. The date of first sale was 2000-07-01. The raised $74.43 million. The offering is still open. The total offering amount was $74.43 million. The private offering document was filed on 2016-07-11. Strongbow Fund Ltd.'s clarification was: Proceeds of the offering are used for investments in securities and expenses necessary, convenient or incidental thereto..
Strongbow Fund is based in Massachusetts. The company's business is Pooled Investment Fund. The form D was filed by Kirstan Barnett General Counsel/Chief Compliance Officer. The company was incorporated more than five years ago. The filler's address is: Dms House, 20 Genesis Close, Grand Cayman, George Town, E9, Cayman Islands, Ky1-1108. – Bracebridge Capital, Llc is the related person in the form and it has address: 500 Boylston Street, 17Th Floor, Boston, Ma, Massachusetts, 02116. Link to Strongbow Fund Filing: 000112140316000002.
Analysis of Strongbow Fund Offering
On average, startups in the Pooled Investment Fund sector, sell 37.80% investment fund interests. Strongbow Fund sold 100.00% of the offering. The average investment offering size is $24.76 million for companies in the Pooled Investment Fund industry sector. The minimum investment for Strongbow Fund 's private offering was $100000.
Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.


text:
Pre-order now. Dispatches in 15-20 days*. Conditions Apply*
This product dispatches in 8-10 business days*. Conditions Apply*
Order today with Bajaao Express , and your product will dispatch in 24 hours
Special Import. Usually dispatches in 15-18 Days. Conditions Apply*
Special import. Dispatches in 5-8 days from International Warehouse. Conditions Apply*
This item is out of stock
Few instruments shaped more styles of music in the '50s and '60s than the Telecaster guitar. From James Burton to the Beatles, the Telecaster was at the heart of popular music. The Classic Series '50s Telecaster evokes those times with features including an ash body, maple neck and fingerboard, dual single-coil alnico pickups, single-ply white pickguard, vintage bridge and knurled chrome knobs.
Collections: 6 String, Amazing New Deals | Save Upto 50%, Ash, Electric Guitars, Fender, Guitars, Maple, Maple, Mega Discount, Musical Instruments, Over ₹50,000, Rakshabandhan Sale - GIFTS FROM BROTHER TO SISTER, Right Handed, Womens Day
Sign up for access to exclusive deals, special offers and more …
© 2016 BAJAAO.COM. BAJAO | BAJAAO Music Private Limited


text:
Drink for free at Duffy's Tasting Tuesdays
Drink for free at Duffy's Tasting Tuesdays
Tuesdays just got a bit sweeter. Dine at any Duffy's location Tuesdays from 5-8pm and enjoy a free 3oz sample cocktail from the restaurant's playbook. Each week will feature a different cocktail. Valid throughout July 2013. Various locations, visit duffysmvp.com for details.
Dining Deals
See more in Dining Deals
- Nine courses for $90 dollars on a 90th anniversary
- How to get your Pollo Tropical for under five bucks
- Exclusive: Miami.com Experience Dinner at Pisco y Nazca on March 16
- Kids Eat Free July 1-31: Feast on Munchkin Eats
- Eat & drink for less at Oceanaire Thursday, April 24
- Cafe Prima Pasta celebrates National Garlic Day April 19
- Bread + Butter launches happy hour & Frita Fridays in the Gables
- Weston's D'Angelo Pizza launches 12 for $12 lunch special
- Christy's dishes out $9 martinis Wednesdays
- Sweeten March Madness with food & drink deals


text:
YAPHANK - A Yaphank man convicted of sexually abusing a 10-year-old girl was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison today.
Wilbur Wright, 46, was sentenced this morning in Riverhead.
Wright was convicted last month of molesting the little girl for two years. An order of protection has been issued for the victim.


text:
Prada Taupe Saffiano Leather Gold Toned Hardware Long Zip Around Wallet
A chic accessory for the avid shopper, this Prada wallet features a zip around design and roomy interior with several pockets. Taupe, saffiano leather with gold toned hardware. Brand plate at the front. Interior features three long pockets and eight card slots.
Made in: Unknown
Color: Taupe and Gold
Content: Leather, Textile, Metal
Condition: Pre-owned. This item is in good condition. Slight residue marks on exterior. Light pilling on zipper track. Light debris at interior. No other visible signs of wear and tear.
- Height: 4.25"
- Length: 7.5"
- Depth: 1" Approximate
RETURNS: We accept returns of clothing and shoes when notified via email to email@example.com within 3 days of receiving the item/items. Handbags, accessories and jewelry are final sales. We only accept returns on these items if they are in the condition they were received. Items must have original Luxury Garage Sale tags and be unworn.
SHIPPING: Standard shipping in the Continental US is free via FedEx Ground. Second Day Air is $25 and next-day air is $45. International shipments are a flat rate of $45.
- Accessories
- All
- Black Friday 2016
- Wallets
- Grey
- Pre-Owned
- Customer Favorites
- Prada
- Designers
- Frontpage
- New Arrivals
- Prada
- $200-500
LGS is not affiliated with PRADA. We guarantee this PRADA item to be authentic. PRADA® is a registered trademark of PRADA.


text:
The heavy spring rains in St. Louis are proving to be a headache for builders, who are forced to deal with a high water table. The closeness of the water table to the surface means companies need to spend more time and money to pump out water so that construction work can begin.
Full Story:STLtoday.com


text:
|Publication number
|Publication type
|Application number
|Publication date
|Apr 3, 1984
|Filing date
|Mar 4, 1982
|Priority date
|Mar 4, 1982
|Fee status
|Publication number
|Mark C. Fleming
|Original Assignee
|Fleming Mark C
|Export Citation
|BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
|Patent Citations (5), Non-Patent Citations (5), Referenced by (13), Classifications (10), Legal Events (3)
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
This invention performs an analysis of audio signals on the basis of the differences in energy distribution of speech versus music over substantial time intervals and controls unpredictable sequences of periods of music and periods of speech. Relevant prior art in the area of speech analysis occur in inventions such as that of John D. Williamson U.S. Pat. No. 4,142,067. Invention 4,142,067 does not address itself to the analysis and control of unpredictable sequences of periods of music and periods of speech.
The following patents are listed as references forming pertinent reference material of record relevant to the area of automatic speech--music discrimination. Along with other differences, none of the following inventions utilize a magnetic tape delay or multiple cycled integrators, the latter being an integral part of this invention and which the applicant believes represents improvement in the state of the art.
(1) U.S. Pat. No. 4,314,300 by Peter G. Ruether, et. al--Data Detection Circuit for a TASI System.
(2) U.S. Pat. No. 3,873,926 by Larry R. Wright--Audio Frequency Squelch System.
(3) U.S. Pat. No. 3,668,322 by Richard G. Allen, et. al.--Dynamic Presence Equalizer.
(4) U.S. Pat. No. 2,761,897 by Robert Clark Jones, et. al.--Electronic Device for Automatically Descriminating between Speech and Music.
(5) U.S. Pat. No. 2,424,216 by Carl Edward Atkins--Control System for Radio Receivers.
This invention electronically and automatically determines whether an audio signal is music or speech and controls the path of the audio signal based on the determination. The filter presorts the audio signal by passing audio frequencies above 800 Hz and then obtains a relative measure, over substantial multisecond intervals, of the energy contained in the presorted audio signal. Energy measures that are above an experientially determined adjustable reference level are classified by the filter as being representative of music and those below this level are classified by the filter as being representative of speech. The audio signal input to the filter is delayed so that it will arrive at the point of control at the same time as the control signal from the energy measurement circuitry. Due to the substantial delay used in the energy measurement, a lag error, which begins at the transistion of the audio signal from music to speech or from speech to music, is reduced by providing a multiplicity of energy measurements and these are equally spaced throughout the interval used for a single measurement of energy.
Human speech is composed of a "buzz" component and a "hiss" component. The buzz component, resulting from the passage of air from the lungs over the vocal cords, has a fundamental frequency between 80 Hz and 240 Hz. The hiss component resulting from articulation by the tongue and the effect of various resonant cavities, occurs over a broad range of frequencies extending to well above 5 KHz. Due to the method of generating these components of human speech, much of the energy contained therein occurs below 800 Hz. Music produced by some musical instruments such as chimes and flute have much of their energy content above 800 Hz and other musical instruments such as the guitar and horns have substantial energy components contained in harmonics above 800 Hz.
The filter provides a music/speech determination of audio signals and does this, in part, by first limiting the audio to be further analyzed to frequencies above 800 Hz by means of an RC filter associated with a preamplifier.
A noticeable difference between a multiple second analysis of music and a multiple second analysis of speech is the high probability of a pause in speech and, a low probability of a pause in music. Speech is characterized by pauses which correspond to the grammatical symbols of commas, periods, colons, etcetera. For example, in giving voice to this sentence, most would pause briefly where the commas indicate. In contrast, the pauses in music occur infrequently and are often of the "poetic lull" variety which, being somewhat constrained by the tempo of the music, are often brief. Thus, the energy content of a multiple second period of music is usually larger than that of speech. This invention takes advantage of this difference by measuring the energy content of the audio signal over a substantial multisecond period.
The presorted audio signal is truncated at approximately zero volts by a diode rectifier and the resulting pulsating dc is integrated for several seconds. The output of the integrator is compared to an adjustable reference level. If the "ramp" from the integrator excedes the experientially set reference, the audio signal has a high energy content and is classified as music by the filter. If the "ramp" from the integrator does not excede the reference level, the audio signal has a low energy content and is classified as speech by the filter.
Any measurement of the energy in an unpredictable audio signal requires a time interval. In this invention the time interval is purposely substantial (several seconds) and is a result of the selected long period of integration. The measurement of the energy content of the audio signal and thus the determination of whether the audio signal is music or speech is not available for the control of the path of the input audio signal until several seconds have elapsed after the audio signal enters the filter. A time delay, which could be of the digital bucket brigade type or other type and still be within the scope of this invention, is placed in the path of the audio signal so that the audio to be controlled is available at the time the measurement is available. The time delay used here is of the magnetic tape delay loop type. The time delay used to analyse the input audio signal equals the time delay of the magnetic tape delay. So, the signal to be controlled arrives at the control point simultaneously with the control signal from the energy measuring circuitry.
Also, because of the substantial time (several seconds) used to obtain a correct recognition of the audio signal as music or speech, the filter is subject to error at the transition of the audio signal from music to speech or from speech to music. To reduce this error, the filter uses 5 cycling integrators. That is, the start of the integrating period of the 5 integrators are equally spaced through the time interval set for an integration period of one integrator. Thus, a measure of energy in an integration period becomes available 5 times in an integration period. Though a longer or shorter time for energy measurement could be used and though more than or less than 5 integrators could be used and though single or multiple integrators could be used, the result would be within the scope of this invention. The results of the 5 energy measurements are stored in repetatively updated flip-flops and a weighted sum of these 5 measures is obtained to yield a control signal which permits or inhibits the passage of the delayed audio signal to the output of the filter.
It is an object of this invention that it be attachable to an AM or FM radio receiver enabling the user to control what he hears by inhibiting speech and that which is not music and passing only music this being selectable by the user by way of a switch.
It is another object of this invention that it be attachable to an AM or FM radio receiver enabling the user to control what he hears by inhibiting music and passing speech or all that is not music this being selectable by the user by way of a switch.
It is another object of this invention to permit the sorting of music versus speech from any audio signal sources which might contain either music or speech (but not both simultaneously) and/or to control the path of an audio signal.
FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing an application of the filter in conjunction with an AM radio receiver.
FIG. 2 is a diagram of one embodiment of the filter which shows signal flow paths and the circuit types which operate within the filter.
FIGS. 3A-3P illustrate the electrical signals and relative timing of pulses generated within the filter.
FIG. 1 illustrates an application of the filter wherein the filter is located in the path of the audio signal in an AM radio receiver between the output of the second detector and the input to the audio amplifier. The filter sorts the music, speech, music, speech, music, speech sequence and passes the sequence music, , music, , music, , or passes the sequence , speech, , speech, , speech. Each of these output sequences is selectable by switch 28 shown in FIG. 2.
Referring to FIG. 2 and pulse diagrams, FIGS. 3A-3P, the audio signal is introduced into the filter at 2 in FIG. 2. This audio input signal is presented to a magnetic tape delay and is also amplified by the preamplifier, 4. The preamplifier has a voltage gain, Av, that is relatively uniform between the frequencies of 800 Hz and 5 KHz at which frequencies the voltage gain is half of Av. Full-bodied music often has much energy in this frequency range whereas much of the energy in speech occurs below 800 Hz. The preamplifier has a tendency, then, to provide an output signal which is higher in energy content for music input signals than for speech input signals. The preamplified audio signal is rectified by a diode rectifier in 6 and the resulting pulsating dc is buffered by a buffer amplifier in 6. The pulsating dc from the buffer amplifier in 6 is presented to all 5 inputs of the 5 double integrators in 8. Each of the 5 double integrators provide an output, eo, which is related to the pulsating dc input, ei, by ##EQU1## The output, eo, of each double integrator is a ramp of 7 second duration which has a variable rate of rise. Each of the 5 ramps is presented to a voltage comparator in 14 where it is compared to a single, adjustable, dc reference voltage derived from the voltage divider consisting of resistor 10 and potentiometer 12. The output of each voltage comparator, either a logical 0 or a logical 1, is a discrete representation of the energy content of the input audio signal at 2. The logical 1 condition occurs when the input audio signal has a high energy content. Music which is continuous and of full body often generates a logical 1 at the output of a comparator within the seven second interval for a given, experientially determined, setting of potentiometer 12. In contrast, speech is typified by frequent pauses such as occur at the grammatical points of periods, commas, colons, etcetera, and this results in lower energy content when measured over a substantial interval such as 7 seconds. This lower energy level characteristic of speech often results in a logical 0 at the output of each comparator in 14. Each of the binary outputs from the 5 voltage comparators in 14 is gated into a flip-flop in 16 by a read pulse. FIGS. 3A-3E, from the timer, 34.
The timer, 34, repetatively produces ten narrow pulses whose pulse width is approximately 50 milliseconds in a fixed sequence illustrated in FIGS. 3A-3J. Of these, there are 5 pulses, 3F-3J, feeding the voltage level shifters in 36 which, in turn, produce the five pulses, 3K-3P, which are used to discharge the double integrators in 8. These pulses into 8, FIGS. 3K-3P, fix the instant each double integrator starts its 7 second integrating period and, since these pulses are repetative and staggered, with 1.4 seconds elapsing between any and the next succeeding discharge pulse, the 5 double integrators in 8 are cycled double integrators.
The 5 read pulses, FIGS. 3A-3E, from timer, 34, are repetative and staggered with 1.4 seconds elapsing between any and the next succeeding read pulse. These read pulses gate the binary representation of the energy measurement from 14 into the flip-flops in 16. Thus, the 5 flip-flops in 16 are cycled flip-flops.
As shown in FIGS. 3A-3J, each read pulse is closely followed by a discharge pulse. For example, read pulse FIG. 3A is followed by discharge pulse 3F. There are 5 such pairs of pulses in each cycle of the timer. Thus, the occurance of a read pulse which gates a discrete binary measure of energy from a voltage comparator in 14 into a flip-flop in 16, is followed by a discharge pulse which, after being level shifted in 36, discharges the corresponding double integrator which produced the measured voltage.
The outputs from the 5 flip-flops in 16 are presented to a sumer, 18, whose output is a fifth of the sum of the sumer's input voltages. This sum is presented to a voltage comparator, 20, and thus compared to the adjustable dc reference voltage derived from the voltage divider consisting of resistor 22 and potentiometer 24. By adjusting potentiometer 24, the number of logical 1 states from the 5 flip-flops can be selected which in turn will control the passage of the audio signal from the magnetic tape delay to the output, 32.
The output of the voltage comparator, 20, is inverted by the inverting amplifier, 26, and both the inverted and the noninverted voltage form from the voltage comparator are thus selectable by switch 28. That output control voltage selected by switch 28 is used to produce one of the two controlled output patterns at 32 illustrated in the first paragraph of this detailed description; the music--silence sequence or the speech--silence sequence. The output selected by switch 28 is used to control the base current of transistor Q1. This base current controls the current through the coil of relay K1 with resistor R1 limiting the maximum amount of collector current flowing through the coil of K1. The diode, D1, serves to protect the transistor, Q1, from the high voltage produced by K1 when the transistor is quickly turned off. During the operation of the filter, the contacts of relay K1 are either closed, permitting the passage of the 7 second delayed audio signal from the magnetic tape delay, 30, to the output, 32, or the contacts are open, inhibiting the output of the magnetic tape delay from arriving at the output, 32.
The continuous magnetic tape delay provides a time delay of 7 seconds in the path of the audio signal. This time interval equals the delay occuring in the measurement of the energy by the double integrators. An illusary result is that the filter appears to the user to operate in real time.
This invention can be embodied in other specific forms but remain within the essential spirit of this invention. The prefered embodiment described herein is to be thought of as but a single view of a wider set of embodiments with the restrictions on the wider set tailored by the following claims rather than the detailed description of the prefered embodiment appearing herein and all variations which will fit the spirit of the outline of the claims are to be included within the claims. For example, the period of integration stated in this prefered embodiment could be more or less and still be within the scope of this invention.
|Cited Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|Jan 24, 1945
|Jul 22, 1947
|Tung Sol Lamp Works Inc
|Control system for radio receivers
|Nov 7, 1951
|Sep 4, 1956
|Jones Robert Clark
|Electronic device for automatically discriminating between speech and music forms
|Jun 18, 1970
|Jun 6, 1972
|Columbia Broadcasting Syst Inc
|Dynamic presence equalizer
|May 3, 1974
|Mar 25, 1975
|Motorola Inc
|Audio frequency squelch system
|Jan 24, 1980
|Feb 2, 1982
|Storage Technology Corporation
|Data detection circuit for a TASI system
|Electronics, Apr. 1957, pp. 183 185; Music Pulse Analyzer Rejects Voice Signals, by Ronald L. Ives.
|Electronics, Apr. 1957, pp. 183-185; "Music Pulse Analyzer Rejects Voice Signals," by Ronald L. Ives.
|Gannett, E. K., Radio Attachment Eliminates Commercials; Institute of Radio Engineers, N.Y., 3/22/51, presented at Radio Engineers Convention.
|Radio Electronics; vol. 27, No. 9, Sept. 1956, pp. 62 64; Speech Music Discriminator, by Edward Predmore.
|Radio Electronics; vol. 27, No. 9, Sept. 1956, pp. 62-64; "Speech-Music Discriminator," by Edward Predmore.
|Citing Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|Jul 11, 1985
|Oct 6, 1987
|Electronic Engineering And Manufacturing, Inc.
|Audio processing system for restoring bass frequencies
|May 15, 1991
|Sep 15, 1992
|Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
|Signal processing apparatus for separating voice and non-voice audio signals contained in a same mixed audio signal
|Dec 3, 1991
|Mar 29, 1994
|Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
|Apparatus for discriminating an audio signal as an ordinary vocal sound or musical sound
|Jul 18, 1994
|Oct 20, 1998
|Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
|Speech detection device
|Dec 18, 1996
|May 27, 2003
|Interval Research Corporation
|Multi-feature speech/music discrimination system
|Oct 31, 2013
|Apr 29, 2014
|Alon Konchitsky
|Automated difference recognition between speaking sounds and music
|Feb 11, 2013
|Dec 5, 2013
|Jeffery David Frazier
|Digital media players comprising a music-speech discrimination function
|Aug 17, 1991
|Feb 18, 1993
|Koelchens Gert Dipl Ing
|Speech recognition system for equipment control e.g. lighting and radio - has input processed to identify key spectrum content for simple commands to control setting and on=off switching
|Nov 25, 1998
|Jun 15, 2000
|Siemens Ag
|Sound signal processing method especially for telecommunication system
|Nov 25, 1998
|Mar 28, 2002
|Siemens Ag
|Verfahren und Einrichtung zum Verarbeiten von Schallsignalen
|Jul 21, 1994
|Feb 1, 1995
|Philips Electronics N.V.
|Speech signal discrimination arrangement and audio device including such an arrangement
|Jul 18, 1994
|Feb 1, 1996
|Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
|Speech detection device
|Aug 23, 2005
|Mar 9, 2006
|Motorola, Inc.
|Speakerphone having improved outbound audio quality
|U.S. Classification
|International Classification
|Cooperative Classification
|European Classification
|Nov 3, 1987
|Maintenance fee reminder mailed
|Apr 3, 1988
|Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees
|Jun 21, 1988
|Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee
Effective date: 19880403


text:
00 Bergeron Rd Troy, VT 05859
Listed by Ken Libby of William Raveis Stowe Realty
Call Four Seasons Sotheby's International Realty Real Estate for more information.
Lot Size: 2.1 acres
Price/Acre: $45,238
Property Description
HUGE AWESOME views of Jay Peak, only 9 miles to the West. Fantastic location for permanent or vacation home with all Jay has to offer and easy drive away. Lot 2 has state waste water permit for a 3 BR home. Buyer must install a drilled well and a Performance Based mound septic system. Lot 1 is $135,000, Lot 3 is 83,000 and all three lots can be purchased at $275,000. Taxes to be determined after sub-division is final and which will be completed unless buyer wishes all three lots as one parcel
- Property Type: Land
- Zoning: RR1
- Acreage: 2.1
- Lot description: Mountain View, Rolling
- State: VT
- Street: Bergeron Rd
- Building Number:
- Development/Subdivision: 0
- Zip Code: 05859
- County: VT-Orleans
- Town: Troy
- Area Description: Near Golf Course, Near Skiing
- Elementary School: Troy School
- Junior High: Troy School
- High School:
- Water: On-Site Well Needed
- Sewer: Leach Field - Mound, On-Site Septic Needed, Soil Test Available
- Electric: At Street
- Services:
- Land Restrictions:
- Taxes: $845
The New England Real Estate Network provides Multiple Listing Services (MLS) in the States of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Maine.
Copyright© 2016 The New England Real Estate Network. All rights reserved. This information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed. The data relating to real estate displayed on this Site comes in part from the IDX Program of NEREN. The information being provided is for consumers personal, non-commercial use and may not be used for any purpose other than to identify prospective properties consumers may be interested in purchasing. Data last updated on 12/07/2016.


text:
Lead Time
Design by Fredrick Ramond.
Fiona FR38901 Chandelier juxtaposes a striking mix of materials. A sleek industrial black mesh outer drum shade, bound at the top with an interior band of polished stainless steel, encircles an effervescent grouping of tiered glass spheres for the ultimate pairing of industrial-chic design.
The Fiona FR38901 Chandelier is the smallest in size of the entire Fiona Chandelier collection. With 15" in diameter, the FR38901 is provided with 10' of wire and the following stems: (1) 6" and (2) 12". Can be mounted in a close to ceiling position. Max. height with stems included: 41.25".
UL Listed.
See more from Fredrick Ramond


text: We were staying at the Sandestin resort and ordered takeout from Roberto's to avoid having to go out after a long day at the beach. We were so pleased with our pizza and caprese salad. The food was outstanding and the delivery time was right on their projection. A great option while in Sandestin!


text:
Hotels near Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station
Search hotels near Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station in Vienna
Get Secret Prices on select hotels
These prices aren't available to everyone.
Trending now in Vienna
Hotels within 0.5 miles of Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station
- Most bookedAustria Trend Hotel Bosei
240 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"This is in a good out of town location with good transport links to Vienna. Lots of parking and modern, clean and comfortable room. Staff were friendly and knowledgeable about the area."
A Traveller, Jun 2016, GB
118 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"Free parking and a bus to the centre of Vienna. Good buffet breakfast. Used by tour groups."
D, Sep 2016, US
9 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"It is way outside the city and the bus in takes about 40 minutes. The A/C wasn't working but other than that I had no complaints."
A Traveller, Jun 2015, US
Hotels within 1 mile of Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station
111 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"This hotel was very clean and hallways and room had a fresh scent, staff was excellent and helpful any time of the day or night, free computer and printer available for use in the lobby, free wifi in room worked without interactions, great and on time shuttle service. Fast food, gas station and o..."
A Traveller, Jul 2016, US
107 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"Long weekend with a Golf, lots of culture and culinary pleasures"
A Traveller, Oct 2016, US
16 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"There was an issue with the building, we where moved to a different hotel, all was taken care of no problems quite happy."
A Traveller, May 2016, CA
14 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"Nice hotel, next to u6 station and staff was very helpful. Very recommended"
A Traveller, Jun 2016, GB
Hotels within 2 miles of Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station
16 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
8 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
- CheckVienna KnöllgasseNo Guest Reviews yet
5 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Map of hotels near Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station
- St. Stephen's Cathedral
- Vienna State Opera
- Stephansplatz
- Vienna International Centre
- Vienna City Hall
- Hofburg Imperial Palace
- Messe Wien Exhibition and Congress Center
- Schoenbrunn Palace
- Wiener Stadthalle
- Karlsplatz
- Wiener Prater
- University of Vienna
- Ernst Happel Stadium
- Spanish Riding School
- Gasometer
- International Atomic Energy Agency
- Schwedenplatz
- Naschmarkt
- Belvedere
- Konzerthaus
Hotels in Vienna near Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station
Are you looking for a cheap Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station hotel, a 5 star Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station hotel or a family friendly Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station hotel? You just landed in the best site to find the best deals and offers on the most amazing accommodations for your stay.
When you search for hotels near Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station with Hotels.com, you need to first check our online map and see the distance you will be from Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station, Austria.
Our maps are based on hotel search and display areas and neighborhoods of each hotel so you can see how close you are from Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station and refine your search within Vienna or Austria based on closest public transportation, restaurants and entertainment so you can easily get around the city. All the hotels details page show an option for free or paid onsite parking.
If you wish to see the hotels with the highest featuring discounts and deals near Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station, simply filter by price/ average nightly rate. We recommend you filter by star rating and read our genuine guest reviews so you can get the best quality hotel with the best discount.
One of the new features on Hotels.com guest reviews is that also show reviews from Expedia for Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station hotels and the TripAdvisor Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station hotels reviews so you can make sure that you checking with a reliable source. See the review scores on our Vienna hotel information pages.
Make the most out of your family vacation when you book your accommodation with Hotels.com – book your hotel near Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station, Vienna after reviewing the facilities and amenities listed for each hotel.
After booking your hotel near Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station, expect to receive your reservation confirmation in the mail in less than 10 minutes. The confirmation email contains more information on all nearby attractions, local directions and weather forecast, so you can better plan the days during your trip.
After getting the best hotel rates you can still save more by winning 1 free night! That's right, book 10 nights in any hotel near Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station, Vienna and after you sign up for the Welcome Rewards program, you are eligible hotel you receive 1 night free*
The best hotel deals are here: We have Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station hotel deals, Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station last minute deals and offers to get you the cheapest Vienna Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse Station hotel with our lowest price guarantee.
Vienna travel guides
How to get to Bratislava from Vienna
The two cities of Bratislava and Vienna are both beautiful, intriguing and worth visitors time, but ...
Things to do with kids in Vienna
Vienna may not seem like a 'kid' friendly vacation… but there are plenty of things to do and see in ...
Where to sleep in Vienna – a neighborhood guide
Whether you want to stay near the best shops and markets, next to the Stadtpark or by the quirky ren...


text:
Cornering for DiRTHome / Playstation 3 /
This page contains DiRT Hints for Playstation 3 called "Cornering" and has been posted or updated on Jan 28, 2008 by J-KIDD.
- Developer: Codemasters
- Publisher: Codemasters
- Genre: Racing
- Release: Sep 11, 2007
- ESRB: Everyone
Brake early, then increase the speed carefully when exiting a corner. In races where there are multiple opponents such as Rally Raid or CORR, position on left side if next turn is a left turn and vice versa. This will give you a much better chance of exiting a corner first or block your opponents from overtaking.
Please Submit a Problem for any incomplete, non-working or fake cheat listed above.
If you know other secrets, hints, glitches or level guides, then please Submit your Cheats and share your insights with other players.
Stuck in this game? Set a specific, clearly defined question and let other gamers answer your question or view answers to previously asked questions. If you think you are an expert then please try to help others with their questions.
Might And Magic: Clash Of Heroes - Gameplay Video
- Dec 8, 2016, Views: 5
Monster Hunter Frontier Z - Announcement Trailer
- Oct 16, 2016, Views: 40
Just Dance 2017 - Sorry by Justin Bieber Gameplay Video
- Oct 15, 2016, Views: 35
Shantae: Half-Genie Hero - Gameplay Trailer Video
- Oct 14, 2016, Views: 42
- Jurassic Dino Era: Train Simulator Full, (iOS)
- Animatronics Rush: Pixel Fight Full, (iOS)
- VR Demolition Derby Xtreme Racing, (iOS)
- Vr Roller Coaster: A Virtual Reality Sim-ulator, (iOS)
- Extreme Fast Car Racing: Amaz: Ing Mini: Craft 3D, (iOS)
- Secret Agent Escape Story Pro, (iOS)
- Penalty Soccer 17E: Spain, (iOS)
- Cleopatra Fire And Face, (iOS)
- 967 Escape Games: Find Ticket, (iOS)
- Dawn Of Titans, (iOS)
- Forest Owl Simulator Full: Be A Wild Bird!, (iOS)
- Rhino Hero: Physics Based Arcade Game For Kids, (iOS)
- Cats GO: Offline, (iOS)
- Return Of The Zombie King, (iOS)
- Colt Express, (iOS)
- Crap! I'm Broke: Out Of Pocket, (iOS)
- Slotomania Casino - Las Vegas Free Slot Machine Games - Bet, Spin And Win Big, (iOS)
- Gin Rummy Plus - Free Online Card Game, (iOS)
- Riff Racer: Race Your Music, (iOS)
- Atomic Super Lander, (iOS)
- Cartoon Network Superstar Soccer: Goal, (iOS)


text:
- Site Template
- WordPress Theme
- Blogging Theme
- CMS Theme
- Marketing Template
- eCommerce Theme
- Forum Theme
- Flash Template
- PSD Web Template
- JavaScript
- .NET Script
- PHP Script
- HTML5 Code
- CSS Style
- Plugin
- Application
- Skin
- Edge Animate Template
- Muse Template
- TypeEngine Theme
- Static Site Generator
- Sketch Template
ThemeForest Bookish WP Theme for Book Authors & Marketers 5437436
ThemeForest Bookish WP Theme for Book Authors & Marketers 5437436
WordPress Theme \ Corporate \ Marketing Template
Page \ Book \ Promotion \ Responsive \ Single \ Software \ Sales \ Minimal \ Landing
WordPress Theme - Bookish WP Theme for Book Authors & Marketers 5437436 by CrunchPress @ ThemeForest
WordPress Theme \ Corporate \ Marketing Template
Last Update: 3 September 13; Columns: 4+; Compatible Browsers: IE8, IE9, IE10, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome; Software Version: WordPress 3.6, WordPress 3.5, WordPress 3.4; Compatible With: WPML, Bootstrap 2.3.x; Documentation: Well Documented; High Resolution: Yes; Layout: Responsive; ThemeForest Files Included: Layered PSD, CSS Files, JS Files, PHP Files; Widget Ready: Yes.
Bookish has been designed for e-book authors and marketers alike and combines everything you need to quickly get your product noticed! It is a clean responsive WordPress theme suitable for book authors, ebook writers, marketers, digital products, or similar websites that needs a feature rich yet beautiful presence online. It is created with a responsive design which makes it a perfect fit for all devices.
Main Features.
- Responsive One Page Design
- Dark & White Layouts
- Infinite Color Schemes
- Google Web Fonts
- jQuery enhanced slider and effects.
- Well commented code.
- Font Awesome
* Initial Release
Be Human - Charity Multipurpose WP Retina Theme; RockOn - Multipurpose Music Events, Store Template; Book Store Responsive WooCommerce Theme; Dynamix Retina Full Screen Background WP Theme; Marry Age - Responsive One Page Wedding Template; Bookish - Theme for Book Authors & Marketers; Be Human - Charity Crowdfunding & Store Theme.
Keywords: apps, book, book author, book landing, clean, ebook, marketing, minimal, one page, promotion, responsive, sales page, single page, software.
Tags Cloud
Android, Builder, Business, Clean, Corporate, Creative, Design, Ecommerce, Email, Fashion, Gallery, Image, Iphone, Jquery, Landing, Magazine, Magento, Marketing, Minimal, Mobile, Modern, Multi, Multipurpose, Parallax, Personal, Photography, Plugin, Portfolio, Product, Responsive, Retina, Simple, Slider, Social, Store, Template, Theme, Video, Woocommerce, Wordpress
Show all tags
Show all tags
Recent Template
- ThemeForest Andromeda Coming Soon PSD Template 18944606
- ThemeForest Pustaka WooCommerce Theme For Book Store 18632697
- ThemeForest DJ Night Event DJ Party Music Club PSD Template 18953541
- ThemeForest The Company Ultimate Business Template for Any Niche 19000918
- ThemeForest Molly Multipurpose Responsive Shopify Themes 18974581
- ThemeForest Good Food HTML Template for Cafe Bar and Restaurant 18977189
- ThemeForest Vina Dazzi VirtueMart Template for Watches Store 18730828
- ThemeForest OnePlus Responsive Material Design Template 18935996
- ThemeForest Onset Multipurpose HTML5 Template 18603360
- ThemeForest thEye Multi-Purpose PSD Template 18841640


text:
Covering massage fundamentals, techniques, and anatomy and physiology, Susan Salvo's Massage Therapy: Principles and Practice, 5th Edition brings a whole new meaning to the word 'comprehensive.' This student-friendly text boasts more than 700 illustrations and expanded sections on neuroscience, research, and special populations, plus new line drawings in the kinesiology chapter of origins and insertions that match the painted skeletons found in most classrooms. It makes the essential principles of massage therapy more approachable and helps you prepare your students for success in class, on their licensing and board certification exams, and in a wide range of therapeutic practice settings.
DETTAGLI PRODOTTO torna su
Titolo: Massage Therapy - Principles and Practice
Autori: Salvo
Editore: Elsevier - Saunders
Volume: Unico
Edizione: V 2015
Lingua: Inglese
Finitura: Copertina flessibile
Misure: 21x27 cm
Pagine: 824
Peso: 1.6 kg


text:
Annie by Jay Maeder and Alan Kupperberg
- March 29, 2013
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Next feature
- Current
Comments (5) (Please sign in to comment)
Morning, Anniephans!
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax,
Of cabbages and kings.
Here's the link to Annie 2004 .
I don't know of too many things, but I know what I know if you know what I mean.
David: The Reverend Dodgson thanks you for your plug for his book…..
It definately looks like the senator is not helping Miss Hersh for altruisitc reasons. I wonder what he expects to get out of her for keeping her safe from her family?
The time has come, the walrus said, to speak of many things. Of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and Kings. And why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings.
- Refresh Comments.
You must be signed in to make a comment.


text:
Shop by Category
Showing slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES} - Shop by Category
Shop by Brand
Save on Pink Rose Gold Fashion Jewellery
Showing slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES} - Save on Pink Rose Gold Fashion Jewellery
- STARFISH Stud Earrings 18k Gold Plated Nautical Beach & Ocean EarringAU $25.94Trending at AU $31.11
- Antique Style 18K Rose GOLD Filled Swarovski Crystal Ring Vintage Look 1ctAU $11.69Trending at AU $12.00
- Antique Style New 18K Rose GOLD Filled Vintage Filigree Flower Ring Size 6 7 8 9AU $7.19Trending at AU $7.32
- 18K Rose Gold GP Round Cut SWAROVSKI Crystal Fashion Wedding Engagement RingAU $11.69Trending at AU $11.99
- 18K White / Rose Gold GP Round Cut Lab Diamond Swarovski Crystal Engagement RingAU $8.99Trending at AU $9.23
- 18K White / Rose Gold GP Round Cut Lab Diamond Swarovski Crystal Engagement RingAU $8.99Trending at AU $9.23
- New 18K White / Rose Gold GF Swarovski Crystal Lovely Butterfly Ring Size 5 to 9AU $8.09Trending at AU $8.19
Best Selling
Showing slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES} - Best Selling
- Eternity Round Statement Crystals Medium Hoop Earrings 16k Gold Pltd Bridal GiftTRENDING PRICEAU $31.11New
- Creative Snake Design Full Cezch Crystal 18k Rose Gold Plated Ring Women Jewelry 8TRENDING PRICEAU $1.53New
- 18k White Rose Gold GF Swarovski Crystal Lovely Butterfly Ring Size 5 to 9 Rose Gold 6TRENDING PRICEAU $8.19New
Results in Pink Rose Gold Fashion Jewellery
1-25 of 2,063
18k rose gold genuine SWAROVSKI crystal key pink heart pendant love necklace18ct rose gold plated chain and pendant. Sparking SWAROVSKI crystal enchased in the pendant. All inquiries will be replied within 24 hours. Color: Pinky yellow GOLD. Very elegant, the real thing is more beautiful than pics!eBay Premium ServiceAU $15.99Free postage17 watching17 watching
EARRINGS STUD 18K ROSE GOLD SWAROVSKI CRYSTAL 5MM PINKFor example, when silver and copper are added to pure gold, it turns yellow. When nickel or palladium (or zinc and copper) are added, gold turns white. Pure gold combined with silver, copper and zinc results in green gold.eBay Premium ServiceAU $5.00Free postage20 sold20 sold
Pendant - Rose Quartz Nugget on fine gold plated ChainRose Quartz Nuggett 3cm diameter on Gold Plated Chain 66cm in lengthAU $21.95Free postage
18K Rose Gold Plated Solid Stainless Steel Heart Charm Pendant Bracelet BangleLuxury Rose Gold Double Heart Charm Bracelet. 18K Rose Gold Plated. Stainless Steel Double Heart Charm. Stunning Gift. Weight 5g.eBay Premium ServiceAU $19.95Free postage10 watching10 watching
SOLID 9CT ROSE GOLD STARDUST Sand BEAD For Charm Bracelet / Necklace / ChainGenuine Solid 9ct Rose Gold Stardust Bead. Solid 9ct Rose Gold Bead. Metal Type: Solid 9ct Rose Gold ( Not Plated/Bonded). Item Stamped "9K" for 9 Carat Gold. Bead Height x Width: 8.1mm x 6.65mm. Bead Weight.AU $58.50Was: Previous priceAU $65.00AU $6.00 postage
Elegant Womens Engagement Wedding Ring Rose Gold Crystal Zircon Stone FashionAU $2.51From ChinaFree postage
Glamorous Vintage Style Large Rose Gold Plated Crystal Fashion Statement BroochAU $22.00Free postage
Fluid Infinity Drop Necklace 18k Rose Gold Plated Beautiful Gift Bridal UniqueA modern and elegant twist to the timeless symbol for infinity. Rose Gold Plated, Hypoallergenic and 100% Nickel Free. Fluid Infinity Drop Pendant Rose Gold Plated. Not 100% satisfied with your jewellery?.eBay Premium ServiceAU $25.94Free postage
New Fashion Women Rose Gold plated CZ stone Dangle Earrings Jewelry HYAU $2.37From Hong KongFree postage
Stunning 18K Rose Gold Filled Women 12MM Round Ball Beads pendant Charm Bracelet18K Rose Gold Filled. The color of photos may vary from different monitor. We also try our best to show the material in a colour that is as close as possible to the original, all our photos are made using light that is as close to natural as possible and avoid color variation.eBay Premium ServiceAU $14.99Free postage51 sold51 sold
18K ROSE GOLD PLATED GENUINE PINK SWAROVSKI CRYSTAL & PEARL BUTTERFLY NECKLACEStunning 18k rose gold plated pearl and genuine Swarovski crystal pink and clear butterfly necklace. The chain measures 46cms and the pendant is 4 x 2.8 cms. Be sure to add me to yourfavourites list !eBay Premium ServiceAU $33.99Free postageOnly 1 left!Only 1 left!
SOLID 9CT 9K ROSE GOLD STARDUST STAR BEAD For Charm Bracelet / Necklace / ChainGenuine Solid 9ct Rose Gold Stardust Bead. Solid 9ct Rose Gold Bead. Metal Type: Solid 9ct Rose Gold ( Not Plated/Bonded). Item Stamped "9K" for 9 Carat Gold. Bead Height x Width: 8.1mm x 6.7mm. Bead Weight.AU $59.80Was: Previous priceAU $65.00AU $6.00 postage7 watching7 watching
Women's 18K White / Rose Gold Filled Greek Style Wedding Engagement Ring VINTAGEeBay Premium ServiceAU $9.99Free postage
MYJS Cupidon Heart Necklace Pendant Gift Swarovski Crystals Rose Gold PltThe Cupidon Necklace is the perfect romantic gift. Cupidon Ribbon Heart Necklace with Clear Swarovski® Crystal Rose Gold Plated. All our design are authentic MYJS | My Jewellery Story design. Every order comes with a beautiful and protective MYJS velvet bag.eBay Premium ServiceAU $38.99Free postage
18K Rose Gold Plated Swarovski Crystal Charming Pink Heart Stud EarringsMaterial: 18K Rose Gold Plated. Type: Stud Earrings. Our Swarovski Crystal jewellery is handpicked and only uses Genuine Swarovski Elements sourced from Authorised Suppliers. Stone Type: Genuine Swarovski Element.eBay Premium ServiceAU $22.99Free postage
Women Crystal Pink Opal Pendant Necklace+Earrings Wedding Party Jewelry Set 61YWFashional and shiny, this golden jewelry set can show your boundless glamour. You're worth it! You will be the most charming girl in the party. With big pink opals, this jewelry set is quite sweet and shiny.eBay Premium ServiceAU $3.90Free postageFrom China32 sold32 sold
18K Rose Gold GP Genuine Swarovski Crystal Bracelet GiftAU $15.99Free postage
New 18k Rose Gold Pendant with Pink Drop-shaped Swarovski Crystals Chain JewelryThis elegantly crafted necklace features a large drop-shaped pink Swarovski crystal pendant surrounded by fine sparkling crystals. It comes with a zinc alloy 18k gold-plated chain. This necklace is an ideal jewellery to wear for any evening functions.AU $22.90Free postage
SOLID 9CT ROSE GOLD Round & Marquise CZ Charm BEAD Fit European Bracelet / ChainSolid 9ct Rose Gold Bead with Sparkling Round & Marquise CZ. Solid 9ct Rose Gold Cz Bead. Metal Type: Solid 9ct Rose Gold ( Not Plated/Bonded). Gemstone: 8pcs x 4mm x 2mm Marquise White Cubic Zirconia.AU $99.36Was: Previous priceAU $108.00AU $6.00 postage7 watching7 watching
Interlocking Circles Knot Necklace Pendant Rose Gold GP Open Love Authentic MYJSThis rose gold plated necklace is a simple yet elegant addition to any outfit. Each jewellery piece at My Jewellery Story is created lead and nickel free, making it suitable for all skin types. Designer Inspired Interlocking Circles Pendant Rose Gold Plated.eBay Premium ServiceAU $25.99Free postage
Bamboo Hoop Earrings 18k Gold Plated Statement Design FashionInspired by the strong, resilient nature and unique shape of bamboo, these gorgeous hoop earrings are plated in lustrous 16k gold and perfectly adds glamour to any outfit. Like all jewellery pieces at My Jewellery Story, they are created nickel free, making the Bamboo Hoop Earrings hypoallergenic and suitable for all skin types to give you the ease of mind you deserve.eBay Premium ServiceAU $25.94Free postage
18K White / Rose Gold GP Classic Wedding Engagement Ring With SWAROVSKI CrystalAUS SELLER !!FAST DELIVERY!!High Quality! 3000+ SOLDeBay Premium ServiceAU $4.99Free postage276 sold276 sold
Beautiful Pink Clear Crystal Rose Gold Plated Necklace and Earring SetChain Length is approx 43cm 5cm Extension Chain.AU $23.00Free postage
18k ROSE gold gf SWAROVSKI crystal bangle wedding party womens braceletColor: ROSE gold. Decorated with sparkling SWAROVSKI crystal. All inquiries will be replied within 24 hours.eBay Premium ServiceAU $36.99Free postage
18K Gold GP SWAROVSKI Crystal Pink Rose Feather Bead Double Chain AnkletsThis item is made with 'Swarovski Elements ® Crystal' by authorized partner of Swarovski Elements®. SWAROVSKI CRYSTAL ANKLETS. We are always happy to sort out any problems in a professional manner.eBay Premium ServiceAU $18.80Free postage
- SOLID GOLD OR NOT SOLID GOLD!?In my opinion and 25 years experience there are ONLY two different types of gold jewellery. That which is SOLID GOLD and that which is NOT SOLID GOLD. SOLID GOLD should not be confused with pure gold. ...
- Gold Plated and Gold Filled jewellery. Frequently asked questionsWhat does Gold Plated jewellery mean? Gold plated jewellery is not solid gold jewellery. It is jewellery made of a base metal (e.g. copper or zink alloy) or silver that has layer of gold applied on the...


text:
Landlord Building & Contents Insurance
insurance, contents insurance, home contents insurance
Tenants & Renters Contents InsuranceThis policy from Rentguard is available to all residential tenants (including students) living in flats, bed-sits, shared accommodation and students in halls of residence, for properties of all sizes throughout the UK. The insurance covers loss or damage as a result of all standard perils including:• Fire, Smoke, Explosion, Lightning, Earthquake.
• Storm or Flood.
• Theft or Attempted Theft consequent upon violent and forcible entry.
• Escape of Water.
• Malicious Damage consequent upon violent and forcible entry.
• Riots or Civil Commotion.
• Collision, Falling Trees or Branches.
• Lamp-posts, TV aerials or Masts.
Additional benefits include:
• Accidental Damage to Home Entertainment Equipment.
• Accidental Damage to Mirrors and Glass.
• Accidental Loss of Oil and Metered Water.
• Temporary Removal.
• Alternative Accommodation.
• Tenants Liability to the public up to £2,000,000.Includes
* FREE Legal & Tax Advice Line
* 24 hour Emergency Helpline
* 24 hour Glass Replacement ServiceAccidental damage to Landlord's ContentsThe policy includes full accidental damage cover to landlords contents, so helping to protect a your deposit.Cover for your Personal PossessionsRentguard offer additional cover for personal possessions provided that they belong to you or your family and that they are mainly used for private purposes. This includes personal effects, valuables and money.Full details are available and should be fully understood prior to taking out the policy. The above information provides only a brief explanation of the policy.
Print this page
Create your free Hotfrog business profile
Follow Hotfrog on:
Share on:
Hotfrog Small Business Hub