§

A.T.I. Warehouse, Inc.

169 N.L.R.B. 580 (N.L.R.B. 1968)
A.T.I. Warehouse, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Garment Workers v. Labor Board

    366 U.S. 731 (1961)   Cited 213 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union cannot represent a group of employees for which it does not enjoy majority support

  2. Labor Board v. Steelworkers

    357 U.S. 357 (1958)   Cited 72 times
    In United Steelworkers, the Court warned that the NLRA "does not command that labor organizations as a matter of abstract law, under all circumstances, be protected in the use of every possible means of reaching the minds of individual workers, nor that they are entitled to use a medium of communication simply because the employer is using it."

  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. International Un., United A., A. v. N.L.R.B

    363 F.2d 702 (D.C. Cir. 1966)   Cited 34 times
    Rejecting argument NLRB used section 8(c) protected statements as "as some evidence of the unfair labor practices themselves" and concluding statements were used only to "place . . . other acts in context"

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Douglas County Electric Membership

    358 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 1966)   Cited 33 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Douglas County Electric Membership Corp., 358 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 1966), we stated that the specific evidence requirement was an adjunct to the Board's Rules and Regulations that an objection to the conduct of an election shall "contain a short statement of the reasons therefor."

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Des Moines Foods, Inc.

    296 F.2d 285 (8th Cir. 1961)   Cited 20 times

    No. 16694. November 29, 1961. Leo N. McGuire, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. made argument for petitioner. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Samuel M. Singer, Atty., and Leo N. McGuire, Atty., NLRB, Washington, D.C. were on the brief. Hobart E. Newton, Stuart, Iowa, made argument for respondent, and was on the brief. Before SANBORN, MATTHES and RIDGE, Circuit Judges. SANBORN

  7. NATIONAL LABOR REL. BD. v. BETTER MONKEY GRIP

    243 F.2d 836 (5th Cir. 1957)   Cited 14 times

    No. 16278. May 1, 1957. Rehearing Denied May 29, 1957. Owsley Vose, Stephen Leonard, Washington, D.C., Theophil C. Kammholz, General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Assistant General Counsel, Ruth V. Reel, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Herbert S. Bonney, Jr., William L. Keller, Dallas, Tex., for respondent. Before BORAH, RIVES and BROWN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to Sec. 10(e) of the National Labor Relations