Barnes & Noble Bookstores, Inc.

23 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bell Aerospace Co.
416 U.S. 267 (1974) Cited 758 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that an agency is "not precluded from announcing new principles in an adjudicative proceeding"
Labor Board v. Seven-Up Co.
344 U.S. 344 (1953) Cited 367 times
Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding
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.”
N.L.R.B. v. Camco, Incorporated
340 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1965) Cited 76 times
Holding that knowledge of union activities could be inferred from the fact that an employer discharged eleven of sixteen union adherents without discharging any of its remaining seventy-four employees
N.L.R.B. v. Griggs Equipment, Inc.
307 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1962) Cited 52 times
In Griggs, the issue was not even mentioned in the Board's Decision, but is noted in the decision of the court of appeals.
N.L.R.B. v. Lowell Sun Publishing Company
320 F.2d 835 (1st Cir. 1963) Cited 29 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Lowell Sun Publishing Co., 320 F.2d 835, 841 (1 Cir. 1963), the Board found that the company discharged an employee because of his union activity.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. S. Bleachery
257 F.2d 235 (4th Cir. 1958) Cited 33 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that the essential inquiry is whether the employer shares the power of management
N.L.R.B. v. Gladding Keystone Corporation
435 F.2d 129 (2d Cir. 1970) Cited 18 times
No. 183, Docket 34924. Argued November 9, 1970. Decided December 29, 1970. Frank H. Itkin, Atty., Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Nancy M. Sherman, Russell J. Thomas, Jr., Attys., on the brief), for N.L.R.B. William L. Bergan, Syracuse, N.Y. (Bond, Schoeneck King, Francis D. Price, Syracuse, N.Y., on the brief), for respondent. Before SMITH and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and LEVET, District Judge
P.R. Mallory Co. v. N.L.R.B
400 F.2d 956 (7th Cir. 1968) Cited 19 times
In P.R. Mallory Co., supra, for example, the defendant had failed to have an employee and participant in the transaction testify as to his personal knowledge.
N.L.R.B. v. King Radio Corporation
416 F.2d 569 (10th Cir. 1969) Cited 17 times
Distinguishing between permanent and temporary subcontracting

Barnes & Noble Bookstores, Inc.

23 Cited authorities

Holding that an agency is "not precluded from announcing new principles in an adjudicative proceeding"

Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding

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.”

Holding that knowledge of union activities could be inferred from the fact that an employer discharged eleven of sixteen union adherents without discharging any of its remaining seventy-four employees

In Griggs, the issue was not even mentioned in the Board's Decision, but is noted in the decision of the court of appeals.

In N.L.R.B. v. Lowell Sun Publishing Co., 320 F.2d 835, 841 (1 Cir. 1963), the Board found that the company discharged an employee because of his union activity.

Stating that the essential inquiry is whether the employer shares the power of management

In P.R. Mallory Co., supra, for example, the defendant had failed to have an employee and participant in the transaction testify as to his personal knowledge.

Distinguishing between permanent and temporary subcontracting