Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.

Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot

Labor Board v. Steelworkers

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."

Labor Board v. Cabot Carbon Co.

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

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. National Container

In National Container Corp. the Second Circuit, applying the Board rules, held that an employer had interfered with the employees' organizational rights and given the incumbent union unlawful support by entering into a collective bargaining agreement following the incumbent's victory in a Board election, but at a time when the rival union's objections to the election were still pending before the National Labor Relations Board.

N.L.R.B. v. John S. Swift Company

In National Labor Relations Board v. John S. Swift Co., 277 F.2d 641; National Labor Relations Board v. Knight Morley Corp., 251 F.2d 753; National Labor Relations Board v. Southern Silk Mills, 209 F.2d 155; National Labor Relations Board v. J.I. Case Co., 198 F.2d 919.

Coppus Engineering Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

In Coppus we adopted the requirement of actual evidence of domination of Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 221 F.2d 165 (7th Cir. 1955), and found none. Chief Judge Magruder, in a concurring opinion, recognized fully that the Shop Committee may have been "a feeble instrument", 240 F.2d at 573, but that it was "not the duty of the employer nor a function of the Board to `baby' along the employees in the direction of choosing an outside union."

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Brown Paper M. Co.

In N.L.R.B. v. Brown Paper Mill Co., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 867, at page 872, we said, "Respondent makes a good deal of the fact that one of the Brotherhood dealers admits that it brought the charges for the purpose of helping its organizational campaign. * * * The point that the Brotherhood may benefit or lose by this proceeding is not material to it.

National Labor Relations Bd. v. Avondale Mills

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Valentine Sugars