§

Armstrong Machine Co.

343 N.L.R.B. 1149 (N.L.R.B. 2004)
Armstrong Machine Co.

14 Cited authorities

  1. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 357 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  2. Bourne v. N.L.R.B

    332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964)   Cited 93 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Shelby Memorial Hosp. Ass'n

    1 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 1993)   Cited 27 times
    Ordering employees to remove union patches based on uniform policy not previously enforced violated § 158

  4. Furniture Rentors of America, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    36 F.3d 1240 (3d Cir. 1994)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that employer was not required to bargain over subcontracting because decision was based on reduced productivity, damaged product, customer complaints, and employee theft rather than labor costs

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Okun Bros. Shoe Store, Inc.

    825 F.2d 102 (6th Cir. 1987)   Cited 23 times
    In Meehan v. City of Los Angeles, 825 F.2d 102 (9th Cir. 1988), the Ninth Circuit held that two incidents involving alleged unconstitutional harassment did not support the existence of a custom sufficient to establish municipal liability under Monell.

  6. Adair Standish Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    912 F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1990)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that the employer violated the Act by instituting changes in the employees' schedules following the union's certification

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Chicago Metallic Corp.

    794 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 14 times
    In Chicago Metallic, unlike the situation presented here, the employee at issue was assigned no manual chores and had the authority and discretion to take disciplinary action against employees.

  8. Helena Laboratories Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    557 F.2d 1183 (5th Cir. 1977)   Cited 20 times

    No. 76-3077. August 22, 1977. George E. Duncan, Beaumont, Tex., for petitioner-cross respondent. Elliott Moore, Deputy Assoc. Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen., Counsel, John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, Marion Griffin, Atty., Alan Banov, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent-cross petitioner. Petition for Review and Cross Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board (Texas Case). Before THORNBERRY, AINSWORTH and RONEY, Circuit Judges. AINSWORTH, Circuit

  9. 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.

  10. L.S. Ayres Co. v. N.L.R.B

    551 F.2d 586 (4th Cir. 1977)   Cited 15 times
    In L.S. Ayres Co. v. National Labor Relations Bd., 551 F.2d 586 (4th Cir. 1977), we held that, "the fact that a witness is an employee at the time that he testifies adversely to his employer is at most only a factor bearing upon his credibility and one entitled to little weight unless it is established that he does not know that he is protected in testifying."

  11. Section 152 - Definitions

    29 U.S.C. § 152   Cited 3,211 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Defining a supervisor to include “any individual having authority . . . to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment”