Ashley Furniture Industries

7 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

    388 U.S. 26 (1967)   Cited 322 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
  2. Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    437 U.S. 556 (1978)   Cited 196 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity
  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.

    389 U.S. 375 (1967)   Cited 233 times
    In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.
  4. Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.

    370 U.S. 9 (1962)   Cited 206 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections
  5. N.L.R.B. v. Unbelievable, Inc.

    71 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Unbelievable, Inc., 71 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir. 1995), we upheld the Board's finding that the employer "engaged in unfair labor practices by eavesdropping on private conversations between employees and [a] Union representative," which occurred in the employee break room.
  6. N.L.R.B. v. Main Street Terrace Care Center

    218 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2000)   Cited 15 times

    Nos. 99-5526, 99-5628. Argued: May 5, 2000. Decided and Filed: July 6, 2000. Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 On Application for Enforcement and Cross-Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. No. 9-CA-35620. ARGUED: J. Randall Richards, Columbus, Ohio, for Respondent. Andrew J. Krafts, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, APPELLATE COURT BRANCH, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. ON BRIEF: J. Randall Richards, Geoffrey E. Webster, Columbus, Ohio, for Respondent. Andrew J

  7. Jeannette Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    532 F.2d 916 (3d Cir. 1976)   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Sustaining the Board's finding that the employer's rule broadly prohibiting wage discussions was an unfair labor practice under § 8, reasoning that "wage discussions can be protected activity and that an employer's unqualified rule barring such discussions has the tendency to inhibit such activity"