Alden Leeds, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board
380 U.S. 300 (1965) Cited 350 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful
Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.
351 U.S. 149 (1956) Cited 223 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith
Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
402 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2005) Cited 22 times
Contrasting lawfully speeding up a long-planned operational change due to union activity, with unlawfully "suddenly decid[ing] to find a way to cut back ... to spite the Union"
Lakeland Bus Lines, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
347 F.3d 955 (D.C. Cir. 2003) Cited 21 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board's "clipped view of the record" did not support its finding that the employer had committed unfair labor practices
Conagra, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
117 F.3d 1435 (D.C. Cir. 1997) Cited 20 times
Equating an inability to pay with an inability to afford, and emphasizing that the employer had “stated repeatedly that the company remained profitable”
Stroehmann Bakeries v. Nat'l Labor Relations
95 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 9 times 2 Legal Analyses
Nos. 1429, 1887; Nos. 95-4159(L), 95-4207(XAP). Argued May 20, 1996. Decided September 9, 1996. Steven R. Wall, Morgan, Lewis Bockius, Philadelphia, PA (Edward S. Mazurek, of counsel), for Petitioner-Cross-Respondent. David A. Fleischer, Staff Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC (Frederick L. Feinstein, General Counsel, Linda Sher, Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, of counsel), for Respondent-Cross-Petitioner. Cross-petitions for
Eads Transfer, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
989 F.2d 373 (9th Cir. 1993) Cited 2 times
Nos. 91-70583, 91-70664. Submitted March 4, 1993. The panel unanimously agrees that this case is appropriate for submission without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), 9th Cir. R. 34-4. Decided April 5, 1993. Gary M. Carlson, Portland, OR, for petitioner-cross-respondent. Aileen A. Armstrong, N.L.R.B., Washington, DC, for respondent-cross-appellant. Petition for Review Cross Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before: TANG, POOLE, and RYMER, Circuit Judges
Movers Wrhsemen's Ass'n, Etc. v. N.L.R.B
550 F.2d 962 (4th Cir. 1977) Cited 4 times
Holding that because employers cannot insist on bargaining about permissive subjects, they "certainly ... may not so insist to the point of lockout the ultimate weapon in the labor relations arsenal"

Alden Leeds, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful

Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

Contrasting lawfully speeding up a long-planned operational change due to union activity, with unlawfully "suddenly decid[ing] to find a way to cut back ... to spite the Union"

Holding that the Board's "clipped view of the record" did not support its finding that the employer had committed unfair labor practices

Equating an inability to pay with an inability to afford, and emphasizing that the employer had “stated repeatedly that the company remained profitable”

Holding that because employers cannot insist on bargaining about permissive subjects, they "certainly ... may not so insist to the point of lockout the ultimate weapon in the labor relations arsenal"