§

Barnwell Sportswear, Inc.

183 N.L.R.B. 103 (N.L.R.B. 1970)
Barnwell Sportswear, Inc.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,035 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wyman-Gordon Co.

    394 U.S. 759 (1969)   Cited 809 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding invalid a legislative rule developed in agency adjudication

  3. 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.”

  4. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    289 F.2d 757 (D.C. Cir. 1960)   Cited 43 times

    No. 15384. Argued April 11, 1960. Decided June 30, 1960. Mr. Benjamin C. Sigal, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. David S. Davidson, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Miss Fannie M. Boyls, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, were on the brief, for respondent. Before PRETTYMAN, Chief Judge, and BAZELON and

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Sinclair Company

    397 F.2d 157 (1st Cir. 1968)   Cited 28 times
    In NLRB v. Sinclair Co., 397 F.2d 157, 161 (1st Cir. 1968), one of the three consolidated cases disposed of in the Gissel opinion, the Court of Appeals said, "Whether an employer has used language that is coercive in its effect is a question essentially for the specialized experience of the Board."

  6. N.L.R.B. v. C.J. Pearson Co.

    420 F.2d 695 (1st Cir. 1969)   Cited 6 times

    No. 7421. December 22, 1969. Warren M. Davison, Washington, D.C., with whom Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, were on brief, for petitioner. Henry M. Swan, with whom Conrad M. Cutcliffe, Providence, R.I., was on brief, for respondent. Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, WOODBURY, Senior Judge, and COFFIN, Circuit Judge. By designation. PER CURIAM. The narrow issue in this case is whether the Labor Board was warranted in