American Can Co.

24 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,675 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
  2. Thomas v. Collins

    323 U.S. 516 (1945)   Cited 886 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state may regulate labor unions but "[s]uch regulation ... must not trespass upon the domain set apart for ... free assembly"
  3. Labor Board v. Virginia Power Co.

    314 U.S. 469 (1941)   Cited 169 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Virginia Electric Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 477, 62 S.Ct. 344, 348, 86 L.Ed. 348 (1941), the Supreme court concluded that the Wagner Act could not be interpreted to prohibit an employer from exercising his First Amendment right to express his views to employees on the merits of unionization, provided the expression was neither coercive nor part of a coercive course of conduct.
  4. Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board

    185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950)   Cited 162 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Joy Silk the Court held that when an employer could have no doubt as to the majority status or when an employer refuses recognition of a union "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the union's majority, the refusal is no longer justifiable and constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain set forth in section 8(a)(5) of the Act".
  5. Texas Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    336 F.2d 128 (5th Cir. 1964)   Cited 64 times
    In Texas Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 336 F.2d 128 (5 Cir. 1964), the court held that charges filed by the Union that alleged generally that the company had "engaged in * * * unfair labor practices within the meaning of" Section 8(a)(1) and (3), and then alleged specifically various acts of coercion against a named employee was sufficient to include unfair labor practices by the company against other employees which were not mentioned in the charges.
  6. N.L.R.B. v. Johnnie's Poultry Co.

    344 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1965)   Cited 32 times   11 Legal Analyses
    In N.L.R.B. v. Johnnie's Poultry Co., 8 Cir., 344 F.2d 617, we recognized that an employer has no vested right to insist that union representation be established by a Board conducted election but we further held that an employer acting in good faith belief that a union lacked majority representation was not required to recognize and bargain with the union until such doubt was resolved.
  7. Snow v. N.L.R.B

    308 F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1962)   Cited 30 times
    In Snow, both the employer and the Union chose the clergyman who ran the check and he compared signatures, not just names.
  8. Celanese Corporation of America v. N.L.R.B

    291 F.2d 224 (7th Cir. 1961)   Cited 29 times
    In Celanese Corp. of America v. N.L.R.B., 291 F.2d 224, 225 (7th Cir. 1961), this Court held that the Board's "wide discretion" lies in the initial promulgation of rules and regulations establishing the procedures and safeguards for conducting representation elections.
  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. West Point Mfg. Co.

    245 F.2d 783 (5th Cir. 1957)   Cited 23 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. West Point Mfg. Co., 245 F.2d 783 (5th Cir. 1957), and N.L.R.B. v. Williams, 195 F.2d 669 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 834, 73 S.Ct. 42, 97 L.Ed. 649 (1952), it was held that coercive interrogation of employees by Company officials constitutes a violation of the Act.
  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gorbea, Perez & Morell, S. En C.

    300 F.2d 886 (1st Cir. 1962)   Cited 16 times

    No. 5918. March 27, 1962. Norton J. Come, Attorney, Washington, D.C., with whom Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Melvin J. Welles and Morton Namrow, Washington, D.C., Attorneys, were on brief, for petitioner. Jaime Pieras, Jr., San Juan, P.R., with whom Pieras Martin, San Juan, P.R., was on brief, for respondent. Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and ALDRICH and GANEY, Circuit Judges. Sitting by designation

  11. Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy

    29 U.S.C. § 151   Cited 5,092 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"