§

Berenson Liquor Mart

223 N.L.R.B. 1115 (N.L.R.B. 1976)
Berenson Liquor Mart

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. 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.”

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Howell Chevrolet Co.

    204 F.2d 79 (9th Cir. 1953)   Cited 53 times
    In National Labor Relations Bd. v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 204 F.2d 79, 86 (9th Cir. 1953), we recognized that "carriage, behavior, bearing, manner and appearance of a witness, — his demeanor, —" may cause the trier of fact to reject uncontradicted testimony.

  4. Food Store Employees Union v. N.L.R.B

    422 F.2d 685 (D.C. Cir. 1969)   Cited 19 times

    No. 21939. Argued January 10, 1969. Decided June 3, 1969. Mr. Charles Orlove, Chicago, Ill., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D.C., and Albert Gore, Chicago, Ill., were on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Elliott Moore, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel,

  5. Food Store Employees Union v. N.L.R.B

    418 F.2d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 1969)   Cited 15 times

    Nos. 21809, 21921. Argued January 16, 1969. Decided July 18, 1969. Miss Judith A. Lonnquist, Chicago, Ill., with whom Messrs. Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D.C., and Albert Gore, Chicago, Ill., were on the brief, for petitioner in No. 21,809 and intervenor in No. 21,921. Mr. Arthur A. Horowitz, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate

  6. Section 149:100 - Hours of work without interval for meal; duration; violation of statute

    Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 § 100   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No person shall be required to work for more than six hours during a calendar day without an interval of at least thirty minutes for a meal. Any employer, superintendent, overseer or agent who violates this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than three hundred nor more than six hundred dollars. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 100