Aerovox Corp. of Myrtle Beach

12 Cited authorities

Amalgamated Clothing Wkrs. of Am. v. N.L.R.B
365 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1966) Cited 63 times
Nos. 19452, 19515. Argued January 10, 1966. Decided June 27, 1966. Mr. Joel Field, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Jacob Sheinkman, New York City, was on the brief, for petitioner in No. 19452. Mr. Warren M. Davison, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, were on the brief, for petitioner in No. 19515
Surprenant Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B
341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) Cited 60 times
In Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) this Court approved as non-threatening, language of the employer which was much stronger than that used in the present case.
Shoreline Enterprises of Am., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
262 F.2d 933 (5th Cir. 1959) Cited 46 times
In Shoreline Enterprises of America, Inc. v. NLRB, 262 F.2d 933 (5 Cir. 1959), the court recognized that a Board agent is present not only to make sure eligible voters vote but also to make sure that an employee who thinks he is eligible may cast a challenged ballot.
Serv-Air, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
395 F.2d 557 (10th Cir. 1968) Cited 28 times
Applying special circumstances approach to rule banning the wearing of multiple badges
Textile Workers Union of America v. N.L.R.B
388 F.2d 896 (2d Cir. 1967) Cited 19 times
Rejecting the imprimatur idea
N.L.R.B. v. Dan Howard Mfg. Co.
390 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1968) Cited 16 times
In Dan Howard, supra, 390 F.2d at page 309, we further stated: "The court [Sixth Circuit] pointed out that it is relevant to consider the subjective intention of the signer and his expressed state of mind in deciding whether a misapprehension was knowingly induced."
N.L.R.B. v. Southbridge Sheet Metal Works
380 F.2d 851 (1st Cir. 1967) Cited 16 times
In NLRB v. Southbridge Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 380 F.2d 851 (1st Cir. 1967), the First Circuit considered this precise question.
N.L.R.B. v. Kayser-Roth Hosiery Co.
388 F.2d 979 (4th Cir. 1968) Cited 7 times
In Kayser-Roth, supra, we were unwilling to dispose of the contention that the "serious harm" language was violative of § 8(a)(1), without considering the circumstances surrounding its use, and even more recently in N.L.R.B. v. Greensboro Hosiery Mills, Inc., 398 F.2d 414 (4 Cir., 1968), in which Judge Butzner unqualifiedly concurred, we strongly intimated that a "serious harm" notice could violate the Act "by virtue of accompanying circumstance."
N.L.R.B. v. Aerovox Corp. of Myrtle Beach
390 F.2d 653 (4th Cir. 1968) Cited 5 times
No. 11652. Argued January 11, 1968. Decided January 29, 1968. Alan D. Eisenberg, Atty., N.L.R.B., (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel and George B. Driesen, Atty., N.L.R.B., on the brief) for petitioner. Wm. H. Smith, Jr., Columbia, S.C., (Ellison D. Smith, Jr., Columbia, S.C., on the brief) for respondent. Before BRYAN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges, and KELLAM, District Judge. PER CURIAM: The National Labor Relations Board
N.L.R.B. v. Little Rock Downtowner, Inc.
341 F.2d 1020 (8th Cir. 1965) Cited 5 times
Nos. 17581, 17615. March 5, 1965. Peter M. Giesey, Atty., N.L.R.B. made argument for petitioner and filed brief with Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel and Lee M. Modjeska, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. William E. Fortas and Earl W. DeHart, of Fowler, Fortas DeHart, Newell N. Fowler, Memphis, Tenn., made argument for respondent and filed brief. Before VAN OOSTERHOUT and MEHAFFY, Circuit
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,091 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

Aerovox Corp. of Myrtle Beach

12 Cited authorities

In Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) this Court approved as non-threatening, language of the employer which was much stronger than that used in the present case.

In Shoreline Enterprises of America, Inc. v. NLRB, 262 F.2d 933 (5 Cir. 1959), the court recognized that a Board agent is present not only to make sure eligible voters vote but also to make sure that an employee who thinks he is eligible may cast a challenged ballot.

Applying special circumstances approach to rule banning the wearing of multiple badges

Rejecting the imprimatur idea

In Dan Howard, supra, 390 F.2d at page 309, we further stated: "The court [Sixth Circuit] pointed out that it is relevant to consider the subjective intention of the signer and his expressed state of mind in deciding whether a misapprehension was knowingly induced."

In NLRB v. Southbridge Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 380 F.2d 851 (1st Cir. 1967), the First Circuit considered this precise question.

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"