§

Big Run Coal & Clay Co.

152 N.L.R.B. 1144 (N.L.R.B. 1965)
Big Run Coal & Clay Co.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 712 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"

  2. Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.

    356 U.S. 342 (1958)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."

  3. Brooks v. Labor Board

    348 U.S. 96 (1954)   Cited 301 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

  4. Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board

    321 U.S. 702 (1944)   Cited 252 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

  5. H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 514 (1941)   Cited 241 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Warrensburg Board Paper Corp.

    340 F.2d 920 (2d Cir. 1965)   Cited 21 times

    No. 6, Docket 28735. Argued September 25, 1964. Decided January 5, 1965. Duane R. Batista, Attorney, N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Warren M. Davison, Attorney, N.L.R.B. on the brief), for petitioner. Irving T. Bergman, New York City, for respondent. Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and MOORE and SMITH, Circuit Judges. SMITH, Circuit Judge: The National Labor Relations Board pursuant to § 10(e) of the National

  7. National Lab. R. Bd. v. E. Mass. St. Ry. Co.

    235 F.2d 700 (1st Cir. 1956)   Cited 10 times
    Noting the development by the Board of a section 10(c) "for cause" body of case law

  8. National Labor Rel. Board v. Standard Oil Co.

    196 F.2d 892 (6th Cir. 1952)   Cited 4 times

    No. 11464. June 6, 1952. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Washington, D.C., George J. Bott, David P. Findling, A. Norman Somers, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, William J. Avrutis, Washington, D.C., on brief, for petitioner. James R. Tritschler, Cleveland, Ohio, Maurice F. Hanning, James R. Tritschler, Cleveland Ohio, on brief; McAfee, Grossman, Taplin, Hanning, Newcomer Hazlett, Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel, for respondent. Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges. MILLER, Circuit Judge