§
Arcoa Corp.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,035 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  2. Labor Board v. Parts Co.

    375 U.S. 405 (1964)   Cited 213 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

  3. 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".

  4. 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.

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Harry F. Berggren Sons, Inc.

    406 F.2d 239 (8th Cir. 1969)   Cited 15 times
    Enforcing the Board's finding that an employer violated Section 8 by conducting a formal "poll" which took place in a non-coercive atmosphere, but which met only four of the five components of the Struksnes standard

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Ben Duthler, Inc.

    395 F.2d 28 (6th Cir. 1968)   Cited 11 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Ben Duthler, Inc., 395 F.2d 29, 34 (6th Cir.), this Court said: "The purpose of the Board is to protect the bargaining rights of employees, not the bargaining rights of the union."

  7. Retail Clerks Union, L. No. 1179 v. N.L.R.B

    376 F.2d 186 (9th Cir. 1967)   Cited 8 times

    No. 20781. March 28, 1967. Roland C. Davis, Philip Paul Bowe, Carroll, Davis, Burdick McDonough, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Warren M. Davison, Lawrence M. Joseph, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Roy O. Hoffman, Director, N.L.R.B., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before HAMLEY and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, District Judge. HAMLEY, Circuit Judge. This matter