§

Blue Flash Express, Inc.

109 N.L.R.B. 591 (N.L.R.B. 1954)
Blue Flash Express, Inc.

26 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,697 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

  2. Radio Officers v. Labor Board

    347 U.S. 17 (1954)   Cited 471 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

  3. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board

    324 U.S. 793 (1945)   Cited 495 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

  4. 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

  5. Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co.

    311 U.S. 584 (1941)   Cited 338 times
    Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"

  6. 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".

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Illinois Tool Works

    153 F.2d 811 (7th Cir. 1946)   Cited 47 times
    Noting that the test for violations of sec. 8, now codified as sec. 8, of the NLRA is whether "the employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act," and that actual or successful coercion need not be shown in order for the Board to find a violation

  8. Precision Fabricators v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    204 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953)   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 271, Docket 22653. Argued May 13, 1953. Decided June 22, 1953. Nixon, Hargrave, Devans Dey, Rochester, N.Y., Arthur L. Stern and William B. Lee, Jr., Rochester, N.Y., of counsel, for petitioner. George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel; Samuel M. Singer and Melvin Spaeth, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before SWAN, Chief Judge, and L. HAND and FRANK, Circuit Judges. SWAN, Chief Judge. This is a petition by an employer to

  9. United States v. Lawinski

    195 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1952)   Cited 31 times

    No. 10528. March 5, 1952. Rehearing Denied April 18, 1952. Simon Herr, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Otto Kerner, Jr., U.S. Atty. Daniel P. Ward, Asst. U.S. Atty, Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before MAJOR, Chief Judge, and DUFFY and LINDLEY, Circuit Judges. LINDLEY, Circuit Judge. Defendant was charged in an indictment in seven counts with the unlawful transportation in interstate commerce of seven stolen Chevrolet automobiles, knowing the same to have been stolen, in violation of Section 2312, Title

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Southland Mfg. Co.

    201 F.2d 244 (4th Cir. 1952)   Cited 29 times
    Recognizing that Board's legitimately drawn conclusion in discharge proceeding is "binding upon the courts" because courts "are without power to find facts or to substitute their judgment for that of the Board"