ยง

Atlanta Newspapers, Inc.

172 N.L.R.B. 1422 (N.L.R.B. 1968)
Atlanta Newspapers, Inc.

5 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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McGahey

    233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956)   Cited 133 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. McGahey, 233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956), this court described casual and moderate inquiries, even as to union preference, absent evidence indicating that the employee has reason to consider the inquiries a threat of reprisals, as not constituting an unfair labor practice in violation of ยง 8(a)(1).

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Threads, Incorporated

    308 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1962)   Cited 37 times
    In NLRB v. Threads, Inc., 308 F.2d 1, 9 (4th Cir. 1962), in which I concurred, we made the logic-defying statement that prior (or presumably simultaneous) unlawful labor practices can "not transform protected free speech into unlawful and unprotected speech."

  4. Lozano Enterprises v. N.L.R.B

    357 F.2d 500 (9th Cir. 1966)   Cited 21 times

    No. 20069. March 3, 1966. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter Hampton, Frank Simpson, III, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Warren M. Davison, Michael N. Sohn, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before BARNES and ELY, Circuit Judges, and CURTIS, District Judge. CURTIS, District Judge: We have before us a petition to set aside the decision and order of the NLRB requiring the

  5. Rubin Bros. Footwear v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    203 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1953)   Cited 17 times
    In Rubin Bros. Footwear v. National Labor Relations Bd., 203 F.2d 486 (C.C.A. 5th), the Court said: "If anything is settled in labor law and under the act, we think it is that membership in a union does not guarantee the member against a discharge as such. It affords protection against discharge only where it is established that the discharge is because of union activity."