Bauer Welding & Metal Fabricators, Inc.

33 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 470 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
Labor Board v. Seven-Up Co.
344 U.S. 344 (1953) Cited 368 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
Brooks v. Labor Board
348 U.S. 96 (1954) Cited 300 times
Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board
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.”
Texas N.O.R. Co. v. Ry. Clerks
281 U.S. 548 (1930) Cited 381 times
Finding provision in Railway Labor Act stating that employees' right to designate representatives without interference, influence, or coercion did not violate employer's right to freedom of association
Labor Board v. Donnelly Co.
330 U.S. 219 (1947) Cited 128 times
Holding that a hearing examiner's prior adverse ruling did not prevent him from adjudicating the same case on retrial even though the examiner's initial decision had been reversed for improper exclusion of evidence
Labor Board v. Cabot Carbon Co.
360 U.S. 203 (1959) Cited 57 times
Concluding that "dealing with" as used in 29 U.S.C. § 152 is a "broad term" and is not synonymous to "bargaining with"
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".
Hendrix Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B
321 F.2d 100 (5th Cir. 1963) Cited 91 times
Permitting the Board to consider the employer's clear expression of opposition to the union as background in order to determine motivation for management's conduct

Bauer Welding & Metal Fabricators, Inc.

33 Cited authorities

Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

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 an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board

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.”

Finding provision in Railway Labor Act stating that employees' right to designate representatives without interference, influence, or coercion did not violate employer's right to freedom of association

Holding that a hearing examiner's prior adverse ruling did not prevent him from adjudicating the same case on retrial even though the examiner's initial decision had been reversed for improper exclusion of evidence

Concluding that "dealing with" as used in 29 U.S.C. § 152 is a "broad term" and is not synonymous to "bargaining with"

Permitting the Board to consider the employer's clear expression of opposition to the union as background in order to determine motivation for management's conduct